Shades of Tyranny
A Cautionary Tale on Cancel Culture
On July 22, the legislative body of Punjab (a province of Pakistan) passed the Punjab Tahaffuz-e-Bunyad-e-Islam Bill 2020 to control sectarianism and religious divisiveness among the various Muslims sects in Pakistan, and to protect the foundations of Islam. There are two majors sects in Islam — Shia and Sunni — and their followers have on many occasions in the past engaged in violent clashes that have disturbed the peace of many countries across the Muslim world. Pakistan has particularly had a history of sectarian violence between these two majors sects and civil society has longed for religious harmony and peace. So it makes sense to pass a bill that can contain these violent tendencies rooted in theological differences between Sunnis and Shias.
How does this bill accomplish that?
According to this bill, printing and publishing any objectionable material will be barred and “the publisher, editor or translator from printing or publishing any book and material that consists of photographs or pictures of suicide bombers, terrorists, except as required by law enforcing agencies for purposes of investigation.”
Punjab Law Minister Raja Basharat said the law would prevent blasphemy of the Holy Prophets (AS), the Great Companions (RA), Ahle Bait (RA), Umhat-ul-Momineen (RA) and the holy figures of other religions, the holy personalities of all religions forever, and would help eradicate sectarianism and religious hatred.
Further, certain sections of the bill allows the Director General Public Relations (DGPR) of Punjab “to raid a publishing house, book store or printing press and confiscate copies of the material the authorities deem violatory, whereas the latter makes it mandatory for all books (local or foreign; first editions or reprints) to seek the approval of the DGPR before they can see the light of the day.”²
What does this have to do with cancel culture?
This article is not a political commentary on the overstepping of bounds by a government, restrictions on the freedom of expression, or the state and influence of the informal religious establishment in Muslim-majority countries. Without a shadow of a doubt, this law is all those things and then some. In fact, over 100 religious scholars (mostly of the Shia sect) have already been arrested for “derogatory remarks”. If there was any doubt about the risks of clamping down on free speech and its consequences, this case couldn’t have made it clearer.
My intention here is to draw parallels between this tyrannical bill and what we call “cancel culture” in today’s America. This is no simple task because, from the looks of it, these are two very different phenomena. One is a government-sanctioned attempt at regulating and controlling speech and expression under either the guise or real intent of protecting Islam, and the other is a communal effort to reprimand those considered to be or have been at odds with virtues popularly espoused by the progressive end of society. Here I’ll refrain from characterizing the nature of alleged harm done by those “cancelled” but they broadly fall in the category of appearing to be discriminatory, prejudicial or hateful towards certain underrepresented/minority groups. But I strongly suspect that deep down in the details there is indeed a strong parallel that may serve as a warning sign.
At this point it is worth defining the mechanism through which harm occurs in these situations and how justice is handed out.
Mechanics of Outrage
Tahaffuz bill is an extension of laws against blasphemy and apostasy in certain interpretations and applications of Islamic law that were implemented due to pressures from citizens and religious scholars. Without going into the theological details, the charge levied against those who become the victims of these draconian laws is that the feelings, identity and emotions of Muslims who hold certain Islamic figures (such as the Prophet Muhammad, his companions and his family) in high regard are hurt. Further, it is their — the Muslims offended by certain derogatory remarks — religious obligation to preserve the honor and dignity of important religious figures. So the perpetrator is any individual whose speech may be considered inappropriate or derogatory. And the victims are people who feel like their religious sentiments were hurt. It is worth noting here that this is the true extent of damage: the experience of having your religious ideas and figures you hold in high regard insulted.
Mapping out cancel culture on this framework is a bit more complicated because, in some cases, there are real victims of sexual misconduct as well as harassment. Louis C.K., Michael Jackson, R. Kelly, and Kevin Spacey are just some of the names of influential figures who got caught in the whirlwind of social media-driven collective outrage on account of serious allegations. However, there is a strong case to be made for the large number of these “cancellations” against individuals like J.K. Rowling, Taylor Swift and even comedic YouTubers like Jenna Marbles. The extent of harm in this case is offense to certain progressive values held by their viewers. This is the broad category of outrage against actions and speech that imply racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, cultural appropriation etc. The perpetrator in this case is any individual whose actions or speech (in the past or present) may imply disrespect or disregard to certain values. The victims are people whose identity is insulted or demeaned in any shape or form. The extent of damage here is the perception that one’s identity is degraded.
How are these similar?
There are certain undeniable commonalities in these two instances that are worth serious consideration. Looking past the religious substrate, I think that the way harm is experienced in both of these cases is whenever something considered sacred appears to have been debased by an individual. How do we respond to this? By popularizing the appearance of ill intent and publicly shaming the perpetrator to reprimand them in any noticeable way.
How are these different?
One has become law of the land and carries the weight of a parliamentary legislation, potential jail time and fines. The other may be characterized by phrases like public shaming, mob mentality etc. that are highly impactful for pop culture figures but have little legal consequences.
What this post is:
I suspect that there are parts of cancel culture which may be deeply sinister, misguided and poorly executed. Some societies become tyrannical over time where fundamental rights get trampled in the name of higher objectives. There are these shades and a spectrum of tyranny that is manifested through instances like blasphemy laws and cancel culture that we need to be wary of.
What this post is not:
It is not my intention to make a slippery slope argument by suggesting that somehow cancel culture may lead to something akin to the Tahaffuz bill. I am not suggesting that legitimate grievances, concerns and charges be ignored and not discussed publicly to bring about justice.
In conclusion, we have clear signs of what happens when outrage culture gets out of hand and when citizens mobilize to try to bring down and contain those who don’t ascribe the same level of sanctity to certain values as they do. There are major commonalities between religious-sanctioned censorship and cancel culture that are worth paying attention to, if not a cause of alarm.
