Sepal, freedom of expression and ethics

The You Tube video released by Social media activist Sepal Amarasinghe making derogatory remarks on the sacred tooth relic and Dalada Maligawa in Kandy has opened a can of worms as expected. However, the controversies over the local government election related issues and the disunity among the southern nationalistic groups have apparently eclipsed the matter.   

However, the video has brought two issues – blasphemy or insulting religion and the limitations of freedom of expression or bridling social media – to the fore. In fact, these are not new issues to Sri Lanka, as there have occasionally been controversies over these issues in the country.   

Some of the words Sepal used in his video were no doubt, outrageous and contemptuous. They were so, not because they were controversial, but he targets a religious symbol highly respected by Buddhists. Had he used these words when talking about Mattala airport or the Hambantota harbour, nobody would have deemed it as contemptuous. Here, they were used to belittle a place which millions of people worship considering it as a blessing to the country. Buddhists place the sacred tooth relic in such a lofty position that the one who possessed it was considered in the past to be the country’s king.   

Although we are not sure of Sepal’s intentions, some of his words used in the video seems to have hurt the feelings of Buddhists, some of whom deem Dalada Maligawa as the guardian of Sri Lanka. He also seemed to know that he was offending religious feelings as he said that “api baya ne” (we are not scared). But, why did he do this?   

There are people who accept religions and follow at least some principles or edicts of them or at least feel some sort of ownership to a particular religion in every country while there are those who do not accept any religion or follow teachings of them. And nobody can blame either of the groups as it is their right to accept or not to accept.   
Freedom of religion or belief is universally accepted and it is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief. However, they do not prevent any individual from criticising any religion to the same extent that an individual has the right to criticise atheism or secularism. Fact of the matter is that constructive criticism and insult are not substitutes to each other. And what could be achieved by one cannot be achieved by the other.   

One is prompted to criticise a religion or any other ideology when he feels that it is different from the one he follows or holds. And it will only be constructive criticism if it is carried out with good faith of winning over the person who follows the other ideology. This objective can never be achieved through insult. We cannot find a single example in the history where one has won over another by insulting him. In fact, it is counterproductive as those who are insulted just for following an ideology would get further close to the ideology or the religion that is being insulted.   
Islamophobia mainly in the Western World is nothing but hate speech and it has never distanced a single Muslim from Islam. It is true in Sri Lanka as well, as we witnessed for the past two decades. A French magazine ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad in 2012 by portraying him naked in a cartoon and similarly a Danish cartoonist caricatured him wearing a bomb in his turban. The world famous Indian artist M.F.Hussain’s painting of Hindu deities including Saraswathy naked in 1990s which infuriated Hindus all over India are still making headlines
in the country.   

Salman Rushdie named prostitutes in his Satanic Verses after the wives of the Prophet of Islam. The then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher while acknowledging that the novel was an outrageous slur just said that great religions must be able to defend themselves. In 1980s Budhhists in many countries were up in arms over underwear sold in Singaporean market with Buddha’s picture printed on them. Former Minister Gamani Jayasuriya as the then President of the Mahabodhi Society lodged a complaint with the Indian High Commission in 1997 over printing of Buddha’s picture with the word Sakyamuni on the labels of liquor bottles sold in India market. All these insults were justified in the name of freedom
of expression.   

Some twenty years ago, the Junior Vikatan magazine published in Tamil Nadu carried an insightful article on an incident which had taken place in a British court. According to the magazine, an institution in Tamil Nadu had filed a case in the said court demanding a statue of Sivanataraja taken to the UK during the colonial period to be returned. Noticing an employee bringing the statue to the chamber hanging it upside down during one of the hearings of the case, the judge had stated “this may be an ordinary court production to you and me in Britain, but it is a sacred statue of a god to 50 million people in Tamil Nadu. We as human beings have a duty to respect the feelings of those 50 million human beings.”   

While delivering the judgment of a case regarding freedom of speech the Indian Supreme Court Judge B.V.Nagarathna also told on January 3 this year “Hate speech, whatever its content may be, denies human beings the right to dignity” while explaining “dignity is a part of the individual rights that form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and interest of the society.”   

Meanwhile social media makes a heavy impact on the society with the widespread usage of smart phones. It is used by people belonging to all sections of society, rich and poor, educated and uneducated for education, communication, networking among friends and relatives, business transactions, propaganda and various other useful purposes as well as unethical purposes like trolling, attacking and insulting others. Hence, it is sometimes a blessing while another time being a mischief maker.   

You Tube channels are a recent phenomenon which people make money with. It is natural that negative contents in these channels as in the mainstream media has a larger outreach. It is with this popularity of negative contents that the possibility of content producers of social media including You Tube channels going astray emerges. 

 
The governments’ remedy for this is always bringing in repressive laws. However, once promulgated these laws always target weaker sections of the society including the ethnic minorities and groups opposed to the government of the day. The best case in point is the way the ICCPR Act is used in the country. In fact, it is encouraging to see a trend emerging with those concerned about the situation using the same social media platforms to impress the value of ethics upon their peers. How far it would be successful is a
question remaining.