Of course, words and ideas are not always “just words”, they can have great cultural and political weight. But nowadays this argument goes a long way. Instead of trying to instill in young people a strong sense of personality, giving them the tools to engage with other views, society is increasingly encouraging transgression, feelings of “trauma” and “vulnerability”. In this context, it is not surprising that some Islamist fundamentalists have begun to borrow the language of victimization and sensitivity to demand the censorship of ideas they consider “blasphemous.” However, instead of challenging such dogmatic impositions, our institutions give them legitimacy by promoting fragility and identity policies. Fierce debates resurfaced this week over freedom of speech, blasphemy and Islam after a group of hardline Sunni Muslims protested against Lady of Heaven, a new film about the life of Mohammed’s daughter Fatima. Protesters accuse filmmakers of blasphemy and sectarianism for portraying Muhammad (in CGI format), an act that some, though not all, Islamic traditions consider unacceptable. Protesters also oppose reading Islamic history from the film, a historical narrative promoted by the radical Twelver Shiite cleric Yasser Al-Habib. This connects the violent Jihadism of today and the division that divided Islam immediately after the death of the Prophet more than a thousand years ago. The protests were partially successful. Cineworld canceled all screenings across the country (although leveling secretary Michael Gove responded by firing a government adviser who supported the protesters). But while the capitulation of the movie chain is not surprising, the activists’ excuses are astonishing. An online petition accused the film of being “deeply racist”. In one video, a protester claims “We have the right not to be insulted.” These statements sound more typical of a left-wing protest on campus than of a mob of middle-aged religious men. But like self-righteous students, dissidents know that reporting the victim and mental fragility is an increasingly successful strategy in a society where it is often enough to simply accuse someone of racism of dismissing or dismissing them. . Of course, the real racism here lies in the perception that religious or ethnic minorities are less powerful and cannot be held to the same standards as everyone else. This also reveals another worrying cultural trend. In everything from “black identity” to Islam, the harshest interpretations of these identity groups are increasingly presented as their most “authentic” representations. But this is not true. Islamic thought contains various views on the depiction of the prophet. Many traditions, including Iran, India and Turkey, were open to the depiction of Muhammad. Both the author and the executive producer of the film are Muslims and have a different view of the protesters. By giving the argument to those who shout or threaten louder, we are essentially giving the monopoly of representing Muslims in public life to a subset of religious zealots. This homogenizes Muslims, weakening those who promote pluralism and political dissent in Islam. It deprives us all of an artistically free and critical society. Narratives of British society that have acquired such a cultural package portray liberal values ​​merely as a product of Western domination, while their proponents insist that so-called freedom of speech excludes the right to insult. In this spiritual climate, then, what is so wrong with the beliefs of Islamist protesters? Surely they are only showing sympathy for an oppressed minority by enabling them to impose de-facto blasphemy laws? In a society where the supposed defenders of liberal values ​​are hiding even in the mildest smell of a potentially offensive view, fundamentalists, armed with moral certainty and just indignation, will hardly consider the views of their opponents worthy of a second thought. The best response to these protests is to uphold their right to assemble, but to emphasize that we live in a democratic society where no group should receive special privileges or protection. That we must discuss freely and openly all religious, cultural and political ideas and that no organization should give in to censorship demands. This is the true meaning of equality. really treating people as equals. Our political and cultural elite seem to believe that this problem will go away on its own. However, the Charlie Hebdo massacre’s assassination, the assassination of Samuel Patti, and the chase for Batley Grammar School teacher – all about Islam and freedom of speech – are examples of the violent, sometimes murderous consequences. of letting this censorship remain unquestioned. . “Woke” can not be compared to Islam in terms of its origins, its followers and its consequences, but its narratives provide Islamists with more and more moral justification. Too many in our political class see these issues as a trivial affair rather than an existential debate over the concept of freedom, democracy and equality. Today, liberalism faces a deep dilemma. In a society that places great value on pluralism and diversity, do you bring people together and manage them according to their group identity or do you insist that everyone should be treated as individuals and obey the laws of the country? To most people, I suspect the answer is the latter, but it requires moral clarity and leadership from above at all levels of society. At present, these virtues are painfully lacking.