A Burning Question

Any good political commentator, blogger or journalist would have commented on the Koran burning day hosted by Pastor Terry Jones over the September 11th period. Like I said, a good blogger. Since it has been 19 days since I last updated, and over a week since the 9/11 rememberance service, I guess that doesn't make me a good blogger. So if you're reading this, you're a guillible fool.

The Koran burning, for those who have been living in a cave for the past ten years - which will ironically include Osama bin Laden - was supposed to be in protest at the proposed building of a 'Mosque' at Ground Zero. The astute reader will of course know that the proposed 'Ground Zero Mosque' is less a Mosque and more a recreational family centre, and its not at Ground Zero, but fundamentalists have a fantastic way of forgetting both fact, constitutional law, and the feelings of people directly involved. In the whole silly mess of free speech, fundamentalism and shifting goalposts, I think its important to get a bit of perspective.

So to start with, Terry - or Tezza, as I prefer to call him (for no particular reason) - decides he wants to burn the Koran because, well, being honest, burning things is really cool. Infact, you know what, here's a link to the first website I found using my awesome google fu and total enthusiasm for life (which just about enables me to get out of bed in an afternoon, so don't expect much).

Sky News says: Korans, whut?

So, in reaction to the 9/11 attacks which, in honesty, were rather grim, Jones wants a burning. Later on, when he 'suspends' and then cancels the International Burn a Koran day, he states that he wanted to prove that radical Islam has 'a destructive nature'. Of course, bears also have potential to be violent, and I encourage anyone who doubts this to go deliberately provoke one just to see what happens. A big one. A grizzly.

So Jones fights fundamentalism with fundamentalism, which is not something that has been particularly tried since sometime between the Crusades and the advent of laser guided bombs and 'Axis of Evil' nations. The response is rather predicable. Everyone gets annoyed. To prove that they're perfectly reasonable people, Afghans burn an effigy of Barack Obama in response, which I suppose is a bit better than burning a Bible or something, giving them a kind of perverse moral highground over Terry in the 'how crazy can you be' race. And to prove that it is a stable and functioning democracy, the Afghan police start shooting at people. Frankly, no one really wins.

Anyway, free speech is one of those things that is dragged into disrepute again. So this abstract ideal, originally intended to protect the citizen from the prevailing ideology and dogma is now used to excuse funamentalist stupidity. A fundamental mistake (da dum cha). Oh fate, how cruel you are. The thing about free speech, without wanting to sound a little Blairite (because frankly, the association makes me want to rub vomit in my eyes), is that you've got to measure yourself and have a modicum of respect. Now, free speech is a wonderful thing if it is used correctly. Criticising religious dogma, governments, fundamentalism, poor internet bloggers and Glenn Beck is all fine. Because you can at least direct it with a degree of indivudality and reduce the collateral damage that would come about as a result of using it as an excuse to just insult everyone vaguely associated with your chosen beef. Pastor Terry Jones has not done this particularly well, whereas the effigy burning Afghans were getting at least some of it right before they started chanting "Death to America!" but hey, you can't have it all.

In conclusion, I'm going to have to jump on the bandwagon (a ship that well and turely sailed about a week ago) in saying that Mr. Jones is a stupid small minded bigot. But once again, the issue of free speech still hasn't been addressed. The problem is not with free speech, its with idiots. Unfortunately, we've always had idiots long before we could say whatever we liked because it was our right to do so. I'm not against free speech. I'm in favour of a bit more self moderation. Or maybe a happy naivity that you could separate the stupid from the more informed and intelligent kinds of protest. But that's their perogative, I suppose. If you want to look at a decent religion, take Buddhism for example. Next time Terry Jones has a religious issue he wants addressing with fire, he should follow the great example of Thích Quảng Đức. After all, nothing encourages people to take your protest seriously like self-immolation, because its obvious that if you've gone and set yourself on fire, you're pretty convinced that something needs doing. Also, it doesn't irritate anyone.