Thoughts on freedom of expression
The first roundtable discussion held by the Society was certainly thought provoking. A number of important and indeed fundamental issues were raised regarding the possible limits to the right of freedom of expression and the manner in which those limits should be policed. The following is a personal account of what I understood and took from the debate. This does not reflect the Society’s position or that of any of the participants at the discussion. I hope that this post will serve to stimulate further discussion. Perhaps the most important notion forwarded throughout the course of the discussion was that human rights are not values-free. It is inevitable that there will be political overtones when discussing the manner in which the law should or should not regulate society. Clearly there is some tension between freedom as a cornerstone of democracy on the one hand, and respect as a building block of a coherent and integrated society on the other.
Several participants at the discussion felt that the Jyllands-Posten controversy evidences the failure of unfettered freedom – that the freedom to offend was a catalyst for the accentuation of tensions and the stereotyping of segments of European society. Some participants proposed that the cartoons actually amounted to hate speech, and as such fall foul of the legal limits of freedom of expression.
However, the discussion generally revolved around the assumption that the publication of the cartoons was perfectly legal but editorially irresponsible and sensationalist. In this context it was asked whether legal limitations should be imposed or if the current regime of self-regulation is a better option. The predominant view was that it is dangerous and cumbersome to prescribe limitations to freedom of expression based on the extent to which offence may be taken. Others felt that religious freedom and dignity are values of equal importance and should not be sacrificed at the altar of freedom of expression.
One participant raised the question of how one would draft a law that would limit the right to offend religious sentiments. The fact that religion is often a personal belief creates a possibly insurmountable obstacle to precise definition. Perhaps the solution could be the prohibition of the stereotyping of racial, ethnic and religious groups. Yet, might this not render religion and religious institutions immune to criticism? Most participants felt that allowing the State to determine what is or is not offensive is too high a price to pay. The participants expressed the hope that the media would refrain from harmfully stereotypical publications, as indeed has been the case in respect of other groups.
In the final analysis most participants felt that limiting fundamental freedoms should not be taken lightly. It is certainly true that proponents of unfettered freedom of expression attach a value thereto in much the same way that religious persons attach a value to their faith. However, the empowerment that freedom of expression grants to individuals and groups also has the practical implication of limiting the powers of the State and acts as a check on majority rule. It was felt that it would be wiser to allow social perceptions to evolve through the use of a free press, rather than by limiting what may or may not be said.
Many thanks to all those who participated in an informative debate. Thanks especially to Derek Fincham who chaired the discussion.
Comments
SELF-CENSORSHIP IN BERLIN - ARTISTS AND RELIGION
Legal Research Society Roundtable Discussion
24th October 2006 A15 Taylor Building
Naturally, freedom of expression, and its extension, freedom of the press, is a sort of human right which should be provided to all individuals in all different societies. However, it is inappropriate to exploit civil liberties laws to attack and obnoxiously insult other religions. Therefore, respect and appreciation for all religions and their value systems is an essential right which should be guaranteed for all minorities.
As Muslims, stunned by the news, it was strongly condemn. The distortion of the image of the most honoured Islamic figure, the Nobel Prophet Muhammad in sort of cartoons and caricatures series in a irrespective way published in Magazine newspaper, it was forewarned by the Muslims and brought major consequences. In addition, Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. Spiritually, this kind of attitude of be loving the Prophet should be maintained by all Muslims based on the commandment of ALLAH in the Noble Al-Quran, such as in chapter 5:15, 33:56, 21:107, 47:2, 94:4)
,53:8-9), (17:79) without any excuse. Therefore, it is totally unacceptable and in total contrast with what Islam teaches and what Prophet Muhammad would do.
At the same time, it should be taught that there is the universality of Islam. Islam accepts Adam, Enoch, Noah, Hud, Salih, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Shuaib, Zachariah, Jesus, Moses, and other prophets which is clearly expressed in the Qur’an: “We make no distinction between any of His Messengers (in believing in them)” (2:285). These names stand for individuals who are—in one sense—transcendent and the most proximate to God. Being close to them and showing respect to them is being respectful to God. This is clearly expressed in the traditions of the Prophet. If you love the Prophet, you love God. Why? Because they bring the messages from God. And we say in our prayers “Oh, God! Make us love You. Make us close to You and close to those You love.” These prophets are God’s beloved. They were sent as messengers specially equipped with manifestations that come directly from God and that come constantly from the divine attributes. This is a matter of faith.
In spite of the apologies made, the demonstration is with the only intention, that is to show how respect the Muslims should be observed in favour of the Prophet and kind of lesson to those people who had the same idea to express their talent in the same way. At the same time, Islam is against the aggressor who demonstrate to the extend that involved the bombings of the church or other places of worship including the civilian.
It should be remembered as well that in Islam, there is a concept of Jihad. The biggest jihad is the jihad against the bad intention in your self and it is up to the extend as claimed by the biggest Muslim scholar, Yusuf Qardhawi, ‘anger is a must, we are not a nation of donkeys. We are a nation of lions’. Islam is no laughing matter. A newspaper published a series of twelve cartoons about the prophet Muhammad, is absolutely intolerable matter. According to the Islam it is blasphemous to make images of the prophet. As it is told that the great scholar, Imam Al-Shafie' said: ‘Whoever was angered and did not rage is a jackass’. We are not a nation of jackasses. We are not jackasses for riding, but lions that roar. We are lions that zealously protect their deens, and avenge affronts to their sanctities. We are not a nation of jackasses. We are a nation that should rage for the sake of Allah, His Prophet, and His book. We are the nation of Muhammad, and we must never accept the degradation of our religion...
The resolve this matter on legal base is not guaranteed since it follows with the matter of interpretation of the law involved. Another reason, man-made law is not divine. The suggestion to wide open the intellectual discourse to instill the awareness that there should be certain limitation in any freedom is extremely welcome.
Ole found this article from the Economist, which argues Europe limits positive debate on this and other similar issues: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RDVTQDQ
Here is a link from a public debate on NPR, which should be very informative. The panel debated whether Freedom of Expression must contain the freedom to offend as well.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6249980
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/26102006/325/danish-paper-wins-mohammad-cartoon-libel-case.html