In the wake of the horrific crimes perpetrated by faith extremists in Paris at the Hebdo offices, the question of whether freedom of speech should be inviolate has unfortunately been raised once again. All too often, in modern times those exercising their right to express themselves freely have been punished in the most savage manner.
Right now I am in a quandary as to the ramifications of publishing CPR II in its original format, dealing as it does with aspects of a specific faith (Islam) that sadly, due to the crimes perpetrated by a handful of violent radicals has helped create the impression that Muslims in general are intolerant and certainly intolerant of any criticism of their faith, no matter how slight (and/or factually correct) that criticism might be.
Personally I'm not concerned about upsetting people with my writing (Authors have been doing it for hundreds of years) and I'm certainly not bothered about upsetting a few extremists of any faith. CPR II was not deliberately written to upset anyone or any group in particular, but rather to reflect the current view of faith, and specifically in one section of the novel, the Muslim faith here in the UK (and again, sadly, elsewhere in the world.
Actually what I am more concerned about is how publishers and publishing houses will react in the aftermath to the atrocity.
Modern UK publishers are not known for their avant garde approach to fiction, especially new fiction. Anything that rocks the boat, risks sales; poor sales diminish publishing power in the industry and that has a knock-on effect in regards to their market share. I predict a knee-jerk reflex borne out of self-preservation that will result in the mothballing of many, many excellent stories, and novels because of their 'subject matter'.
I do truly fear that we will now enter into a published world where agents and publishers are so careful of upsetting this faith group, or that belief set that we are forced enter into, and to endure automatic censorship by default.
We have the right to free speech, according to Article 19 of the ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: ("Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his (sic) choice.") , however there appears to be a caveat, as Joe Strummer of The Clash (Know your Rights - Combat Rock) succinctly put it: "You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."
I am pro-guidance, but anti-censorship. Censorship is a control mechanism created by the agents and agencies of a dictatorial 'nanny-state' that bars all from dissemination of information regardless of its intrinsic value on the grounds that it might 'affect' some of us adversely, or cause 'upset and discomfort' to certain sections of society. Guidance on the other hand, is a process whereby certain rules are written down by the same agents and agencies but which allow all sectors of society to have control of their choices, and be aware of the implications of those choices.
The government enforces censorship by invoking law, and/or creating law to accommodate and reinforce censorship. However, that kind of censorship is a hat that is too big for some and too small for others. Guidance is a hat that fits all, because it allows the 'wearer' the choice whether or whether not to put it on in the first place.
I do believe in the right to free expression. I do believe in freedom of speech. But I hear you Joe.... I hear you... Though it might no longer be a case of me being dumb enough to try it, but rather, having that option removed so that it cannot ever be expressed. Dark days indeed.
