HOW FAR MUST LIBERAL SOCIETIES TOLERATE INTOLERANCE THAT DEEMS DEMOCRATIC FREE SPEECH BLASPHEMOUS TO THE POINT OF DECREEING THE DEATH-DEAL? WILL LIBERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS BE MARTYRED AT THE SCAFFOLD OF BIGOTRY AND FANATICISM THAT CITE LITERARY LICENSE AS SACRILEGIOUS TO SPECIFIC ARTICLES OF FAITH?

HOW FAR MUST LIBERAL SOCIETIES TOLERATE INTOLERANCE THAT DEEMS DEMOCRATIC FREE SPEECH BLASPHEMOUS TO THE POINT OF DECREEING THE DEATH-DEAL? WILL LIBERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS BE MARTYRED AT THE SCAFFOLD OF BIGOTRY AND FANATICISM THAT CITE LITERARY LICENSE AS SACRILEGIOUS TO SPECIFIC ARTICLES OF FAITH?

Do not tolerate intolerance of any kind. Otherwise, you will lose your independence altogether. There is nothing so sacrosanct that cannot be scrutinised by reason. God, scripture, law -- these are all man-made and must be subject to human inquiry, investigation and interpretation that must be amenable to modification as society evolves, even unto outright rejection if proven false or detrimental to human progress.

Ethics does not allow the death-deal for apostasy or blasphemous offence. A specific religion does. And so must it be shown its place where it belongs in a free society despite the costs that it may entail. 

More often than not these radical rebuffs to religious repression in the form of satirical compositions advance human society far more than passive acquiescence to the forces of darkness that roguish ideas represent.

A calculated cowardice, individual or governmental, in the teeth of fanatical outpouring against perceived artistic offence that leads to violence and death cannot be deemed either spiritual restraint or worldly wisdom, for the prize of liberty has been won by much of gladiatorial death with scientists, artists, poets and authors lining up to pay the purchasing price of freedom. Now one cannot let go of this laurel of liberty to appease fanatics who wish to censor literary life by threatening the lives of authors perceived to be taking liberties with language and literary forms in so far as being critical to their faith.

With perfect liberty these easily offended ones preach outrageously exclusive theological doctrines that fan the flames of inter-faith animosity, and they are not booked for it, for they either do so in a clandestine manner behind walled apartments or in public by way of staging righteous protest against perceived offence caused to their faith where they play the victim-card to perfidious perfection. But these same ones, who bay for the blood of the offender and are backed by authoritative religious organisations directly and by passive support of the pious who at best pretend allegiance to democratic norms, are appeased to the point that they progressively take the polity down along regressive channels of enforced indoctrination that in times of incitement manage a vicious, violent response from co-religionists in the name of defense of founder and faith.

This has thus far been the appeasement narrative of liberal societies and they have been paid back in unequal terms much to their disadvantage. If further allowance be made and the reins of governance that protect free speech, human rights and liberty of life in general are not held firmly, then fanatics will drag society down to medieval modes and mores whereby it will take a return to violent ways to restore the enlightened way of living once more.

Another French Revolution and its horrific consequence is not what one would ideally want to combat current cultural corruptions. As the saying goes, 'A stich in time saves nine.' So, let liberal societies no more tolerate the intolerance of illiberal cultures invading their public and private spheres. May democracy now show up its firm resolve in dealing the death-blow to all such pernicious philosophies that threaten its very existence! Else, the hour having passed, a worse ordeal will follow and contrary cultural currents that are so antithetical to each other seek out their synthesis amidst a violent return to grace.

Written by Sugata Bose