Taken from Index for Free Expression 22 November 2004

"Theo van Gogh's body wasn't yet cold before Index on Censorship marked him down as 'furiously provocative', a 'free speech martyr' who 'abused his right to free speech'." Frank Fisher comments on a recent article published on the website. A statement by the Editors & Board of Index on Censorship was released on 19 November.

Theo Van Gogh's body wasn't yet cold before Index on Censorship marked him down as 'furiously provocative', a 'free speech martyr' who 'abused his right to free speech'. Van Gogh's most recent transgression was Submission , a collaboration with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The film, a blend of koranic verses, victims' tales and female skin, outraged Islamic opinion. Calls for a ban came from one end of the spectrum - death threats from the other. And clearly, these were no idle threats. Index's enraged article suggests that the film goes beyond acceptable boundaries of free speech, that it satisfies Oliver Wendell Holmes' definition of unprotected speech in that it is akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Index is wrong. Absurdly so. Submission carries no threats to kill, it does not incite violence - the only charge levelled Is that It Is "offensive". Well, so what? Is Index really saying that free speech ends when you cause offence? What about Piss Christ then? Or Chris Ofili's Virgin Mary? What, indeed, about The Satanic Verses?

Like The Satanic Verses, the anger surrounding Submission is against it; the film itself isn't violent or threatening. Of course, criticism of Islam is implicit, and criticism of the men who use or misrepresent that religion to abuse women. (Does Index really think we shouldn't speak of such things?) But even if any hatred is incited by the film, intentionally or unintentionally, it would be directed first at an abstract, Islam, second at those who abuse it – but not named individuals, or specific groups. Index's article is a far more incendiary piece of work. It has named targets. It comes in the wake of bloody murder. It doesn't have any artistic merit, (the claim of ‘irony' is laughable; is the use of the terms ‘idiot', ‘cretinous' or ‘bullshit' ironic perhaps?), it's a pure hatchet job. Van Gogh was already dead by the time it hit the web - but his colleagues are not.

Hirsi Ali is in hiding - and if Index attacks Van Gogh for being 'furiously provocative' then it also attacks her, directly - she wrote and narrated the film. Van Gogh marched onto the stage and said "There is a fire in this theatre but you're too dumb to see it". Rohan Jayasekara entered stage left, and yelled "Van Gogh and that woman in seat 11B started it." That's the difference, and that's why I oppose censorship of Submission, but at the same time demand the withdrawal of Index's reckless article. What on earth has gone wrong at Index? A publication that once vociferously defended Salman Rushdie now parrots the same sentiments you hear from Muslims and so-called liberals on every talkboard: “I don't condone his murder, but he asked for it…” No. He did not. No artist does. And for a publication like Index to suggest otherwise is ignorant, dishonest and a total negation of the entire purpose of the magazine. Worse, it contributes to a climate that will threaten others besides Hirsi Ali.

Chatroom bigots can rant all they like – it doesn't amount to much. But Index has a position, a constituency, a history. Index is part of a web of human rights organisations that have set out a topography of human rights. Yes, we have the UDHR, we have numerous groups demanding this right and that right. But not all rights are achievable at the same time - many conflict. Index knows that free speech cannot exist unfettered, and has devoted much space to looking at what position it should and could hold. So when Index turns around and shunts free speech aside, implies that religious convictions should carry greater weight, that we should hold our tongues lest we anger the extremists... that matters . What does Index's article say to schoolchildren, politicians, artists? More importantly, what does it say to the very real enemies of free speech on European streets?

It says capitulation. Surrender. It says come at us with a gun and we'll turn tail and run, moreover we'll hand over our critical artists to you. Our defence of human rights is not so heartfelt that we're prepared to risk offending you…

Van Gogh's murder reinforces the belief that western liberal values and extremist islam - wahhabism and similar offshoots – are simply incompatible. I look at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and I cannot imagine a place for the UDHR under any Kilafah, now or in the future. Yet here is a bastion of liberal thought, faced with murderous Islamic fascism on our own streets, and it says… nothing. Contents itself with attacking the victim. Index cannot deny there is a problem – the evidence lies in an Amsterdam graveyard – will the problem disappear if we close our eyes, or cast vague blame on poverty, isolation, Iraq…? Liberal thought is in a mess; so fired up with hatred of Bush and the Iraq disaster that liberals foolishly assume his enemy is their friend. And many are so frightened of causing offence or being called racist that they'll turn away from any human rights abuse if religion or culture is invoked in its defence. That squeamishness must end. As Pim Fortuyn said, we have no choice other than to stop tolerating intolerance.

Index didn't even report Fortuyn's murder, and now pours scorn on his mutilated friend. Tell me this; if Van Gogh had been a crusading left wing journalist killed by neo-nazis, would he have been attacked as provocative? If Peter Tatchell had not recovered from his beating by Mugabe's thugs, would he have been on a martyrdom operation? And if Ayaan Hirsi Ali turns up with a butcher's knife in her chest, will she be sneered at before the blood clots?

Please take that article down. If Rohan wants to applaud a murder and support religious censorship, then let him find a more appropriate place to do it. In Index, it's disgraceful.