Liberty or Restriction

 

The ability to express your opinion is considered by many people to be a fundamental issue. It has to be tempered with the inability to cause hatred and discrimination.

The corresponding issue of causing hatred is a contentious one because it may be a matter of trying to predetermine what is in the mind of the communicator. In some instances, it is clearly evident if you look at the material produced by people who attack other ethnicities purely for who they are. In other instances, it is more difficult because the listener may think that the content is attacking what they believe purely because they hold an opposite view.

In a number of countries, there is enshrined in its constitution the right to free speech such is found in the First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution. In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that ‘everyone has the right of expression,’ but this right ‘may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.’ The British wording are an adoption of the European Union’s human rights regulations.

The problem is where there is a collision of cultures, where there is a reliance on legislation compared to where the ‘live and let live’ approach is applied. It is where the Anglo nations and others cannot fathom the attitude of the French.

In response to the killing of French citizens, culminating in the horrific beheading of the history teacher Samuel Paty in the French suburbs and the murder of several worshippers in the Notre Dame in Nice in October 2020, the French Government implemented a crackdown on what was described as ‘Islamic separatism.’ The response, particularly from Muslim majority countries, was a call for the boycott of French goods.

The nonunderstanding arises because the French have the concept of laïcité, together with fraternity and equality, at the core of their nation’s being. Laïcité does not equate to secularism, because the latter normally refers to scepticism or hostility rather than neutrality to religion. The term could be better described as the ‘lay principle’ whereby the Church does not have a role in the government of the country.

The former President, Jacques Chirac, once explained: ‘France is a lay state, and as such she does not have a habit of calling for insertions of a religious nature into constitutional texts.’

It arises from the particular route that French history has taken. In the late nineteenth century, the French Republic took on its modern guise after the republicans won their long struggle against the royalists and authoritarians, the latter often being supported by the Roman Catholic Church. The differences between the State and the Church were settled in 1905 when the two were legally separated. It was a situation that was unlike some other northern European nations, such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, where there is still a national church.

Laïcité came about because the State was declared to be neutral regarding religion, so people were free to practice any religion or none if they wanted to. It has meant that Muslim immigrants from North Africa could continue to practice their beliefs from Marseilles to Paris, but there will be more about that later.

After 1905, the loose concept of laïcité became so much part of the French mindset that it disappeared from view, accepted by all including the main religious bodies. One writer, Jean Baubérot, has identified a number of variations in his book The Seven French Secularities: The French Model of Secularism Does Not Exist: anti-religious secularism, Gallican secularism, strict separatist secularism, inclusive separatist secularism, open secularism, identity secularism, and concordat secularism. It could be stated, with some justification, that there are overlaps in these definitions and that further mutations will inevitably arise.

The State was pragmatic in its approach and upholds those religious buildings that it considers to be in the nation’s interests. Such a building is the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, which was a huge tourist attraction in addition to being a place of worship, and whose significance can be seen in the French government taking a lead in its rebuilding after the tragic fire that gutted it in April 2019. The government also funds Catholic schools and, in keeping with the agreement with the Catholic Church, it finances Catholic institutions in some of its former colonies and in Alsace-Moselle that was a German territory at the time of the State-Church divide. This separation was formally incorporated into the Constitution in 1946 and 1956.

There was a regard, however grudging, of the good work that the Church had undertaken. Victor Hugo explained that his view was a bishop with a gold cross was bad, whereas a bishop with a wooden cross was good, that is the Church should not amass material goods. Indeed, the novelist spent a large proportion of his introductory chapters in Les Misérables to Monsieur Bienvenu, the kindly bishop.

The strain on the principle of laïcité can be traced to the huge influx of migrants from its former North African colonies (such as Algeria) in the 1960s, which has led consequently to new generations of French-born Muslims. An example was in 1989, when there were disputes within France as to whether girls born to Muslim families were permitted to wear headscarves in state schools, with opinions being given by politicians from both the left and right, resulting in the inevitable escalation of tension. The outcome was that, in 2004, new legislation was passed banning people wearing conspicuous religious symbols of any kind in state schools and, in 2010, it culminated in the banning of face coverings in public spaces.  

The French nation, like every other country on the planet it seems, is constantly evolving its position with an increasing variety of interpretations on the lay position, encompassing issues such as women’s rights, civil liberties, the essence of freedom of speech among many subjects. However, the tension is focussed particularly on Islam and especially its radical element. This is, in part, due to right-wing politicians demanding a stricter immigration policy and, more so, on the terrorist attacks both within France itself and abroad by supporters and members of al-Qaida, Islamic State, and other extremist groups.

In Operation Barkhane, from 2014 onwards, the French army has been dealing with Islamic militants in Mali and the Sahel region. This action has inevitably fed into the national mindset of wanting to be the bulwark of liberal democracy, where every moderate voice can be heard and the extremist ideologies are not entertained.

Within France itself, in January 2015, there was the shooting of the journalists at the Charlie Hebdo offices and the murder of the Jewish hostages at a supermarket, which resulted in mass demonstrations. In November of the same year, there were 130 people murdered, including at the Bataclan concert hall in Paris. There have been numerous attacks such as the lone wolf shooting of a member of Gendarmerie and killing him, and random ploughing into crowds with the intent of killing and maiming as many as possible. All these events include the horrific events of October 2020.

The French people are, generally, to be considered as open and welcoming, willing to accept all opinions. Voltaire stated: ‘Judge a man by his questions rather his answers,’ so laying weight on people being able to add to the debate. He also said: ‘No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.’

The clash of this openness with radical Islam has been caused by the fact that Islam is in its nature an absolute religion. There are overwhelming calls in Muslim communities throughout the world (including in the United Kingdom) for Sharia Law, with its discriminatory nature against women in particular, to be take precedence over civil law – a proclamation that has been made in many countries. This so-called judicial system is an absolute law with very few, if any, avenues of appeal with little clemency shown.

There is also the issue of the apostacy law within Islam, that states that, even if a Muslim’s faith is shaken, there will be consequences. The tragic instances of ‘honour’ killings has emphasised this reality.

In contrast, again, Voltaire is quoted as saying: ‘What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of faulty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s faults – that is the first law of nature.

 Indeed, Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing as S G Tallentyre) used as an illustration of Voltaire’s philosophical belief: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

The Christians have a different perspective because, although it is also a religion that seeks to add people to its fold, with the disastrous and totally misguided exception of the Crusades, it uses the method of love and not coercion. It was borne out of Jesus preaching the love of God, with full forgiveness being available. It also has the injunction with the epistles to be model citizens and honour the authority of the State which God has given it (as opposed to living in a separate section within the State).

The situation of the evangelicals has always found it difficult to establish churches in France, partly because of the country’s uncertainty over the basis of its beliefs particularly in case it clashed with its concept of liberty. In 2004, it was estimated that this church constituted 0.4 per cent of the population. However, it now constitutes about 0.8 per cent of the population. In total, Protestants are now approximately 3 per cent of the population, which is no mean feat as the figure was stuck at roughly 2 per cent or less since after the Second World War.  In 2011, the National Councils of Evangelicals was officially incorporated with the vision endorsed by hundreds of thousands of believers to have a church for every 10,000 people. There are church planting organisations like Acts 29 which are gradually making this a reality. It has had its difficulties as new congregations, including ones consisting of Christians who have immigrated to the country, have found accommodation hard to come by as public spaces, such as schools, are not open for them to use due to public authorities being unwilling to be involved with religious organisations (such as churches) in their hiring.

There has been unprecedented growth in people coming to faith through the Alpha course, the work of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the evangelistic meeting held by Luis Palau, and the youth ministries such as Jeunesse Pour Christ (Youth for Christ). However, it is to be realised that the background is that 34 per cent of the French population still adhere to atheism, but now that country is regarded as having one of the fastest growths in people becoming Christians in Europe.   

David Broussard of Impact France has commented: ‘As a secular state, France is undergoing some real soul-searching in its relationship to all things faith-based.’ The positive thing is that there is the space for Christians to express their faith in the spirit of laïcité, whereas it is increasingly more difficult in other nations.

It is interesting and illuminating to compare with the United Kingdom, as the Commonwealth period is often perceived in the modern era as being one of intolerance, especially as Puritanism is regarded as being exclusive from other mindsets – the downgrading of Christmas is one of the more ready examples that is made. However, on closer investigation, it is seen as one of the most enlightened with steps being made in the arts (such as the first English operas), science (where foundations were laid for the establishment of the Royal Society in the restoration of the monarchy), and in the field of education (which would not be evident again until the nineteenth century). An example was the readmission of the Jewish population after they had been evicted three hundred earlier. Another was Oliver Cromwell’s treatment of John Lilburne, who had radical views on politics and religion, but Lilburne was only imprisoned when he threatened the stability of the State. It would have to be compared with the more restrictive measures introduced both before and after this time, with the more liberal perspective as to accommodating all views only being the normal at the time of the Glorious Revolution with William III and Mary.

It is an important principle as it is only in allowing the freedom to express your views that you can be challenged or be challenging so that minds are broadened. If views are curbed however seemingly unpalatable, there is the danger that no-one has the opportunity to grow. The danger of the prescriptive hatred bills that were introduced by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is that anything perspective that was not approved by the State could lead to a person facing fines and even prison. One of the consequences could be that the accepted views today could change over time, more socially liberal or conservative, so the country’s citizens could face the vagaries of seeing how the wind blows.

One of the key elements the freedom of the press – the ability to make reasoned arguments, however much other people might disagree with them - with which the discussions of the day can be conducted. Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, noted the principle that ‘If you establish a censorship of the press, the tongue of the public speaker will still make itself heard, and you have only increased the mischief.’

He continued: ‘The powers of thought do not rely, like the powers of physical strength, upon the number of their mechanical agents, nor can a host of authors be reckoned like the troops which compose an army; on the contrary, the authority of a principle is often increased by the smallness of the number of men by whom it is expressed.’  

We are observing the process by which post-modernism is giving way to totalitarian secularism, being told what we can or cannot say, trying to formulate what is acceptable to their mould of society.  The advantage of post-modernism, whilst also being one of its fundamental errors, was that it accommodated the stance that all views were valid, such as one person’s truth was as relevant as another person’s. This tenet was an anathema to sections of society, such as the new atheists, who were dogmatic in their belief in scientism and did not want religious perspectives to be allowed in the discussions. The same approach can also be observed in the growth of so-called ‘wokeness’ that means that we are expected to accept same-sex relationships without demur or rational thought of the medical, social and psychological effects; to bow the knee to the critical race theory without thinking through the premises and the implications; and the list continues. There has to be room for healthy discussion and disagreement, but the opportunities to have these have to be there. The discussions on Twitter and Facebook, in addition to other social media outlets, could be better expressed without the vitriol that accompanies and disguises the fact that the contributors have no reasonable arguments.

Having said that, the restrictions on offensive language and possible danger to the life and liberty of the populace would be of benefit. However, the inherent danger is that, in restricting the liberty of the printed word (regardless of whether it is physical or electronic), there arises an authoritarian regime. The lessons of Communism and Nazism must be in the forefront of our minds before we start to restrict others – the equivalents of book burning will limit our tolerance, our culture and our society in general.

The irony is that, in the attempt to increase the voices of some in the community, the conversation of the many is muted. The role of equality and diversity is snuffed out as differences are exasperated. Robert Nisbet, in The Quest for Community, has expressed the situation as being when ‘The natural diversity of society is swept away.’ Instead of rational thought, there are only sound bites and pointless mantras. We have observed it in the constant repetition of the phrase ‘women are women’ regarding the issue of transgenderism, where the voices and experiences of biological women are excluded to level of cancelling from the public square and it is reckoned to be the demise of women’s sport.

The equivalent of electronic book-burning is taking place with the desire to eradicate those facts which sit uncomfortably with the tenets of the new thought. Robert Nisbet is helpful again in his analysis: ‘History, art, science, and morality, all these must be redesigned, placed in a new context, in order to make of a power a seamless web of certainty and conformity.’

Tocqueville again is relevant here: ‘The liberty of discourse must therefore be destroyed as well as the liberty of the press; this is the necessary term of your efforts; but if your object was to repress the abuses of liberty, they have brought you to the feet of a despot. You have been led from the extreme of independence to the extreme of subjection without meeting with a single tenable position for shelter or repose.’     

The system of cancelling has spiralled out of control in the recent days. Whereas in the past, a person would have been content not to talk with the other with whom they disagreed; now it is like a pack of hounds pursuing the ‘offender’ to obliterate their voice, however moderate that might be. Louise McLatchie on Conservative Home writes about the attempt by University Student Unions and Colleges to prevent debates involving speakers whose views they disagree with, include pro-life issues: ‘...if they hold pro-choice positions, they should be willing to debate them. They should be open to challenge. Students should be allowed to grow. And that means being given space, platforms and the chance to engage on equal terms with those with whom they disagree. They might be wrong; they might be right.’ In other words, the stifling of discussion stunts the rational, mental, cultural and even emotional growth of students and others.

The position is that when the old is removed, something else has to be put in its place. Robert Nisbet has described the situation as follows: ‘Totalitarianism is an ideology of nihilism. But nihilism is not enough.’ Although the previous thoughts are seen as a threat to the new dogma and it is seen as necessary to remove them, there is also the recognition that the void needs to be filled by the loss and identity that was part of the social fabric. It is not surprising that it is filled by the reference back to the causes championed by the State as though education, politics and other horses from the same stable will be the saviours in the modern age.

An example is in the increase in crime, especially when the murder rates are high. The new order can only speak of more money being pumped into the system (such as in social work and the criminal justice system), education or greater awareness by the rest of the community. It ignores the fact that it has been undermining the importance of the family unit and, more importantly, trying to push God to the margins if not out of the picture altogether.

It is often Christianity and Christian values that are alienated by totalitarian secularism, with other religions and beliefs being accommodated as they are seen as being irrelevant, less of a threat in the longer term and/or capable of being patronised. The society forgets that it was the Church that was at the forefront of public medicine, education and social work (including the foundation of the court probation service and the many charities that have Christian roots). In his book Is religion dangerous? author Keith Ward points out the beneficial aspects of the Christianity that today’s culture wants to marginalise and, if possible, erase: ‘The church did preserve ancient classical culture in times of chaos and anarchy. It inspired the building of great cathedrals and sublime works of art, in icons, mosaics and illuminated manuscripts. In its monasteries it gave rise to traditions of scholarship and philosophical debate, as well as helping to build a sound agricultural economy and a refuge for those seeking a sense of the presence of God. And in ordinary life it campaigned for hospitality for strangers, care for the sick, education for all, and the preaching of love, compassion and hope in a world darkened by plague, disease, the cruelty of war, and early death. These quotidian mercies are hugely positive factors that are largely hidden from the eyes of those historians who notice only the grand movements of the rich and powerful. But they are where we might expect to find the most positive fruits of a religion that has always claimed to speak for most of all to the poor and every day, and to let its works of charity be performed in secret, silently.’

The antidote to the push is to personally read good books with robust arguments and studying the history that surrounds society. It is also beneficial to read articles and other online materials, not only from sources that you are likely to agree with so that you can try to understand the other person’s viewpoint and build up your intellectual muscle of reasoning.

Above all, it is imperative to remain in the public forum, however torturous that might be on occasions. We are to follow the example of Paul standing up in the Areopagus in Athens to confront where there is falseness and to encourage where there is the glint of truth (Acts 17: 16 – 34), speaking in love and truth in equal measure (Ephesians 4: 15). In addition, to speaking truth, our words and attitudes must be noble, right, pure, admirable, full of praise, worthy to produce peace and inspired by God (Philippians 4: 8 – 9). There will be times when it will be uncomfortable and unsettling, but we are called to be salt and light where there is decay and darkness. Jonah did not find it easy to preach to the Ninevites with their different worldview and culture (after all, he did run away in order to avoid doing this task), but there was reward as many in that city worshipped the living God, and so one of the consequences was that they lived peaceably to the benefit of other nations.   

We have to maintain our foothold in the public arena, for that can often the way that we can benefit in general. In Jeremiah 29: 7, we are reminded to seek the peace and prosperity of the place where we are called, to pray for it for the mutual prosperity. When you upload a tweet or a Facebook post, we are to pray for it. When we enter into conversation whether or not the topic is contentious, we are to pray that our words are to be from God and that both of us will benefit.

There is the imperative to speak out so that society moves forward as the opposite will happen if we leave the public arena, with the eradication of dignity, tolerance and true diversity. At the end of her article, Louise McLatchie writes: ‘Today, it’s pro-lifers bearing the brunt. Who knows what else might be thrown out with this kind of censorship tomorrow. Throughout history, unpopular ideas have been creating the world we know. William Wilberforce spent his life convincing British comrades that slavery might be wrong. The Edinburgh Seven had to convince the entire nation that women should be allowed to attend university. The pioneers of social advancement have always been underdogs. The end of challenge is the end of progress.’

It will not be easy and there will be the temptation to sidestep or tread on the margins instead of grasping the opportunities that confront us to make a difference. The filmmaker, media consultant and author Phil Cooke wrote (in ‘How Christianity Lost Its Voice in Today’s Media Driven World, The Huffington Post, 5 December 2012): ‘The great challenge of the Church today is speaking into a culture that perceives us as an irrelevant, out of touch museum piece…The Christian Church has to come to terms with the fact that while its role in leading American culture may be over, its voice at the table is not. That doesn’t mean we side-step issues that matter, but we speak the truth in a way that engages rather than condemns. Two thousand years ago, an obscure, marginal group following the teachings of Jesus became the dominant religious force in the Western world. They didn’t have political power, an army or vast wealth. But through their lifestyle, their relationships and their actions, they changed the perception of Rome, and eventually impacted the world.’

We may think that we are unable to stem the flood of totalitarian secularism, but we are called to remain in our places and to use our voice to reason and persuade, offering the forgiveness and grace that is so often absent in our society today. We may feel increasing restricted as the shackles of the thought police (with echoes of George Orwell’s 1984) seem to clamp us, but we still have our liberty to express our, or rather God’s, opinions in truth and love to people who want to hear them.

 

 

Acknowledgement:

The launch pad for this article was ‘France’s laïcité: why the rest of the world struggles to understand it’ written by Michael Kelly, The Conversation, 20 November 2020