|
Post by James Hannam on Feb 14, 2009 14:09:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Feb 14, 2009 14:56:20 GMT
Mr. Hannam,
Well, you know the old saying: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 14, 2009 17:05:27 GMT
Isn't it ironic 'freedom of speech' is used to criticise the Home Office's decision to ban Wilders from entering the UK but not to criticise Wilders' desire to ban the Qur'an?
Besides, I never quite get why Muslims and Christians fall into the hands of liberals in valorising 'freedom of speech', a concept philosophically and logically flawed. If freedom of speech has to be honoured in order to favour truth, progress and accountability as Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill argued, this is patently false as remarks that are degrading and insulting are never constructive and certainly do not facilitate debate and dialogue - shoe-throwing and shouting 'dictator' won't change government policy and marginalisation and demonisation won't help in the cause of understanding; and I'm not sure that you'll be too happy with your children or neighbours hurling curses at each other whenever they feel like it. Freedom of speech was an important factor in the demonisation and oppression of black people in America (hence the argument that it generates tolerance is false).
If 'freedom of speech' has to be honoured because of some intrinsic value (I'll ignore its legal value in the First Amendment and universal Human Rights declerations) as some liberals have argued, it flies in the face of their moral relativism and utilitarian aims. The concept is logically inconsistent. Freedom of speech was of course borne out of liberalism's individualism (and perhaps in response to ecclesiastical control and enlightenment principles) which too is a philosophically inadequate concept as social constructionism (e.g. Vivien Burr's book) has demonstrated how the individual and society are inextricably linked - Islamically and I believe in traditional Christendom, we look to what is best for the society as a whole, not the individual.
Besides, freedom of speech hardly exists; it's a philosophical concept that cannot be exported into the real world, as exemplified in legal restrictions in for example defamation (slander, libel), obscenity and threats, lying in court, speaking about trial outside court after judge forbids it, public speaking without permit, public speaking outside free speech zone, limits on size of public demonstrations, profanity, hate speech, noise pollution, copyright infringement speech, political secrets, sedition, treason, company secrets (in America), fighting words doctrine (in America) etc. It is therefore not 'freedom' at all as the very essence of freedom is non-existent.
In the Qur'an, dialogue and debate is encouraged (e.g. 16:125 and in the concept of 'mutual teaching of truth' in 103:3); blind adherence in light of truth is condemned (e.g. in blindly following forefathers in for example 43:23-34); and standing for justice is strongly encouraged e.g. the prophet Muhammad said "the best jihad is a true word before a tyrant ruler" (Tirmidhi); hence truth, progress and accountability can be achieved without freedom of expression (which doesn't exist anyway). Freedom of expression/speech in Islam is better understood as a right to express oneself within the context of the law and society's values, and this is arguably a better solution than liberalism's.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 14, 2009 21:26:26 GMT
Further to the above, in order to understand why 'freedom of speech' prominently features in modern Western discourse, it should be understood in the context of the difference between the centralised institutions of education in pre-modern Europe and the decentralised institutions of Islam. European education was tightly controlled by a hierarchical church system, whereas academic freedom on the part of professors and students in Islamic institutions was the norm and according to George Makdisi eventually influenced the European system. See: Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages, George Makdisi and Scholasticism and Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West, George Makdisi (both available on jstor).
Islam's lack of a hierarchy (which is unusual amongst world religions) and freedom may have eventually influenced Western Public and International Law. On the issue of freedom of speech, Marcel Boisard writes (footnotes removed):
"Muslim scientific contribution played its part in the development of humanism, since all is linked in the world of the mind. A new curiosity pushed back frontiers and the forbidden. Man worked to have knowledge and to understand himself, thus freeing himself from the burden of tradition. Law developed out of a need for security and foresight in social and human relations. By affirming himself, man put the authority of the Church and of political institutions into question. The concept of the State evolved progressively by a double phenomenon of liberation from the Empire and the Church and, simultaneously, by the suppression of the pyramid of responsibilities at the heart of the feudal system. The duality of power was contested; political and legal problems were posed from a new optique, that of relations between the individual and government. Man asserted himself as an independent personality, trying to create. through law, the social conditions that would define his dignity and responsibility. The first "legal revolution" took place precisely in Europe in the thirteenth century, a period during which the East and the West found themselves intellectually closer.
Certain rules of common law came to supplement custom and, parallel to this, a legislative movement made itself felt. The legal spirit was born, the child of the spirit of the time and of the practical necessities imposed by states in a process of formation. It is certainly not by chance that these developments appeared in Italy. The University of Naples had been created to fulfill official requirements in the field of law and justice. Academic treaties dealing with law and administration were translated in Italy from Arab texts and circulated all over Europe, with professors passing them according to tradition, from one university to another, or they were being spread by religious orders. These usually had the monopoly of university teaching in general and particularly of legal instruction. So it was also in Italy that the didactical teaching of law was at its most refined, at Bologna; to there students rushed from all over the West.
It was above all the very high ethical standard of Islamic law that impressed the medieval West and provoked the development of a more refined legal thinking. This aspect is undoubtedly the most durable merit of Muslim influence, as illustrated by the administration of justice. Until the Crusades, legal procedure in the West consisted of "God’s judgments" by boiling water or by duel, or by "ordeal" during which people were burnt with red-hot irons or boiling oil and, if they survived, declared "not guilty." In contrast, we have only to quote the instructions given by Omar in the seventh century to the Muslim judges to show what a chasm separated the two conceptions: "Only decide on the basis of proof, be kind to the weak so that they can express themselves freely and without fear, deal on an equal footing with litigants by trying to reconcile them," From Islam's beginnings the suspect was presumed innocent until it could be proved otherwise. It is certainly not a coincidence that Louis IX was the monarch who created the French legal administration by appointing "royal inquirers," by instituting testimonial proof, and by permitting the recourse of "making a plea to the King." The legislation he introduced marked a turning point in the history of law in Europe. Popular imagery was not mistaken on this point, since it is that above all which was remembered. Louis IX had frequented the philosophic theologians of his time; he had received St. Thomas Aquinas at his table. The influence of Islam was, however, even more direct. We can make this presumption since it was on his return from Palestine that the King undertook his major legal reforms. Joinville gives us fairly clear proof when he writes:
One day, it happened that a good Franciscan friar came before the good King in the Castle of Yeres where we were abiding. This Friar told him by way of teaching that he had read of the Bible and other good books talking of unbelieving Princes: he had found that Kingdoms (be they believing or unbelieving) were lost except by a lack of respect for the law. So it is, said the Friar, that the King I see here and who is to go to France, takes care to deal out a Fair Justice and a good law to his people. . . . The good King did not forget the teaching of the good Friar. ….
It is interesting that the saying of the Franciscan friar is even a hadith of the Prophet Muhammed, who is quoted by AI-Bokhari to have said: "The people before you were only lost because they used to apply the law on the weak and poor and leave the strong and the rich," The Friar's statement was undoubtedly a major incident since Joinville took care to note it down. It is equally noteworthy that the man who was giving counsel to the King was a member of a religious order, that played so large a role in the elaboration of international law in the middle ages. He was, what is more, honest enough to mention the "unbelieving" princes, that is to say, the Muslims.
The representation of St. Louis under an oak at Vincennes is more than a naive picture. It demonstrates a desire to guarantee individua1 rights and to improve legal organisation by keeping the simple and sacred character of royal justice and introducing a greater equality to it. The direct administration of justice was for a very long time an Arab and Muslim tradition. The Spanish Omayyade received those of their subjects who wished to make complaints once a week" (On the Probable Influence of Islam on Western Public and International Law, 1980, Marcel Boisard - available on jstor)
A letter from a high-ranking Abbasid to a religious opponent demonstrated Islam's understanding of this principle:
"...bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please, appoint some arbitrator who will judge justly between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empery of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have judged justly with you and given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For there is no compulsion in religion (2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord...peace be with you and the blessings of God." (Thomas Arnold, 1913)
And on commenting on this AI Ahmad writes "The Western Church's interference into scientific matters was based on what was perceived to be a threat to religion. In Islam, even matters of religion are not exempt from frank and honest discussion" (http://images.agustianwar.multiply.com/attachment/0/RxbYbQoKCr4AAD@kzFY1/IslamicCalendar-A-Case-Study.pdf)
Of course despite this, blasphemy laws persisted, so this is not the type of inherently valued 'freedom of speech' we talk of today. In Islam, freedom of speech existed to allow proper and sustained dialogue within the context of the law and social values.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 15, 2009 11:38:05 GMT
An excellent article on how liberalism has managed to subvert true morality from a Muslim perspective: The Fall of the Family by Timothy J Winter: www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/family.htm (Part I) www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/family2.htm (Part II) 'Muslims looking at the West with a critical but compassionate eye are often disturbed by this absence of old-fashioned self-scrutiny. We note that no longer does the dominant culture avert complacency through reference to past moral and cultural excellence; rather, the paradigm to which conformity is now required is that of the ever-shifting liberal consensus. In this ambitiously inverted world, it is the future that is to serve as the model, never anything in the past. In fact, no truly outrageous ("blasphemous") discourse remains possible in modern societies, except that which violates the totalising liberalism supposedly generated by autonomous popular consent, but which is often in reality manufactured by the small, often personally immoral but nonetheless ideologised elites who dominate the media and sculpt public opinion into increasingly bizarre and unprecedented shapes.' 'The secular mind may be too witless to notice, but to religious people the New Social Doctrines are fast acquiring the look of a new religion. The twentieth century's great liberationisms often feel like powerful sublimations of the religious drive, as the innate yearning for freedom from worldly ties and the straitjacket of the self becomes strangely transmuted into a great convulsion against restrictions on personal freedom'
|
|
|
Post by travis on Feb 16, 2009 6:30:32 GMT
Interesting video on this very topic: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7888607.stmBelieve it or not, but I agree with the Muslim on practically everything. Also a few brief comments on Zameel’s posts, I don’t want to get into another back and forth with you as I’m sure I’m not your favorite person but I figured I’d share my thoughts. Point Taken. Well, Blacks were demonized and oppressed because at the time that was the majority view, advocates of equality of the races and sexes were the minority and it’s thanks to their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly that ultimately they were able to change hearts and minds. Popular speech everyone agrees with isn’t the speech that needs protecting, it’s the marginal views that most people would rather not hear that need to be the most ardently protected. In most of the examples you cite here, speech is used to violate or potentially violate individual rights, that’s really the only reason I can think of to limit speech at any rate. Then why did Muhammad order the assassination of Abu Afak and Asma for writing mean poems about him? Sorry, didn’t mean to get so inflammatory at the end there, couldn’t help myself though. God bless freedom of speech right?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Feb 16, 2009 10:19:19 GMT
The reason I didn't get exercised about Wilder's own illiberalism is that he is a plonker from Holland while Jacqui smith, who banned him, is the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom. While I vehementally disagree with Wilders, I defend his absolute right to express his opinion.
Zameel is rather innocent of history if he thinks free speech so useless. After all, the Nicolae Ceauºescu was overthrown precisely by a big crowd shouting abuse at him. And satire (which Zameel seeks to outlaw when he rules insults out of court) is an essential weapon of the oppressed. Throughout the eighteenth century, it was the primary form of social criticism in both France and England. Does Zameel really think Steve Bell of the Guardian should be banned from his (let's face it) insulting depictions of President Bush?
However, he is quite right to distinguish between the freedom to speak truth (which is essentially the position of both Islam and pre-modern Christianity) and the freedom to be wrong. It is the latter that is true freedom of speech and in large part its slightly counter-intuitive nature is the reason we need to work so hard to protect it.
Could Zameel perhaps enlighten us as to whether his ideas are prevalent in the Muslim community or whether Salma Yaqoob's views expressed on Question Time (that she had no right not to be offended and that Wilder should not have been banned) is more common.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 11:03:14 GMT
Well, Blacks were demonized and oppressed because at the time that was the majority view, advocates of equality of the races and sexes were the minority and it’s thanks to their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly that ultimately they were able to change hearts and minds Yes, but there is nothing in the concept of 'freedom of speech' that logically guarantees this would have happened. The simple solution, as I see it, is 'free speech' itself lacks inherent value unless it is harnessed towards accepted moral and social values. The Prophet Muhammad's advice to "those who believe in God and the Last Day" is that they "speak good or remain silent" [and "they honour their guests" and "they harm not their neighbours" (Bukhari)]. I don't understand how cursing, insulting, drawing provacative pictures, swearing etc. helps the society; the reason this is a liberal value as opposed to a conservative one is liberals see everything through the enjoyment and freedom of the individual whereas non-liberals consider the society and favour duties over rights. If you believe 'free speech' to be somehow objectively right then you can't repudiate your children for swearing or cursing, or for dishonouring symbols holy to others. And you should be aware the Danish paper that agreed to print those cartoons, refused to print pictures of Jesus some years before and refused to print pictures of Holocaust denial, which is a good indication as to how 'free speech' is in fact manouvered to help the cause of an elite few. If 'black demonisation' or 'religiously offensive cartoons' was banned from the start there would be no problem. 'Speaking freely' therefore should only be allowed within certain boundaries that help truth, progress and accountability. So, for example, 'free speech' should be encouraged in the House of Commons or in religious debates, but 'freedom of speech' as an individual right can never work as not only is it non-existent, it is incapable of generating the values it is supposed to. You seem to advocate individualism which is anti-Biblical and anti-religion in general. The Bible encourages forgoing these so-called 'rights' of individuals in order to 'purge the community of evil' - society is more important than the individual. Liberalism has created the worst social crisis ever - divorce rates and illegitimate births (linked directly to prison population and psychological trauma after divorce), pornography and promiscuity (linked to marriage breakdowns) etc. The reason is, of course, by advocating individualism, we encourage people's selfish tendencies rather than their responsibilities to society. I would hardly call that a moral society, much less a Muslim or Christian one. Believe it or not, but I agree with the Muslim on practically everything Majid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation do not represent the views of most Muslims. They are liberals and ironically while they claim 'tradition', they take up some of the most secular and modern values. Ed Hussain in fact supported the Iraq war which the Archbishop of Cantenbury, most Muslims and most Britons condemned. The problem is conservative traditional voices, e.g. religious leaders like Hamza Yusuf, Zaid Shakir, Yahya Rhodus, the Habaib of Yemen etc. goes unheard, while the extremes (both liberal and radical) are actively promulgated (and funded) hence thought to be normative. You can listen to Yusuf on youtube for a sober representative Muslim voice; good ones are his response to the Pope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8GtHRqtAGI) and his interview with Mark Lawson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b4ucnJ8Kio). Then why did Muhammad order the assassination of Abu Afak and Asma for writing mean poems about him? These stories are found in legendary Sira books which were severely criticised by Hadith-scholars. Abu Afak's story is chainless (without isnad) and Asma's forged (mawdu') according to traditional Hadith critics, hence not only do they not represent actual history, they were not accepted by the ulema. On the contrary, what we find in the canonical Hadith collections is the Prophet's kindness to non-Muslims e.g. of the woman who would throw garbage at him and the event in Bukhari of a Jewish woman who poisoned him and when asked if she should be killed he said no. The stories are therefore historically unreliable and do not conform to what we know of his relationship with non-Muslims. [The favourite Banu Qurayza story is also found in Ibn Ishaq's Sira]
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 11:45:41 GMT
Zameel is rather innocent of history if he thinks free speech so useless. After all, the Nicolae Ceauºescu was overthrown precisely by a big crowd shouting abuse at him. And satire (which Zameel seeks to outlaw when he rules insults out of court) is an essential weapon of the oppressed. Throughout the eighteenth century, it was the primary form of social criticism in both France and England. Does Zameel really think Steve Bell of the Guardian should be banned from his (let's face it) insulting depictions of President Bush? I did not say 'free speech' is useless, but it should only be sanctioned towards an objective. The freedom of speech I criticise is the one borne out of an individualistic liberal outlook which sees it as an individual human right. When the caliph Umar sought to reduce the Mahr (dowry) a woman stood up from the crowd and corrected him, and Umar replied 'Umar is wrong and the woman is right'. But here 'freedom of speech' is not valued but 'standing for justice' [as the Qur'an says 'O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.' (5:8) and 'O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (them ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do. ' (4:135)]. However, he is quite right to distinguish between the freedom to speak truth (which is essentially the position of both Islam and pre-modern Christianity) and the freedom to be wrong. No - Christianity did not allow any disagreements with the Church, whereas Islam did not have a "church" or a hierarchy hence the space of academic freedom and disagreements was much broader. Islam did not stiffle criticism, but unwarranted unhelpful speech. In the examples I provided from the caliphs, 'truth' and 'reason' and 'justice' are encouraged while 'free speech' in these circumstances is only a by-product of these principles. I, therefore, think Islam has a better social system for generating progress, truth and accountability than both pre-modern Christianity and liberal Christainity. Could Zameel perhaps enlighten us as to whether his ideas are prevalent in the Muslim community or whether Salma Yaqoob's views expressed on Question Time (that she had no right not to be offended and that Wilder should not have been banned) is more common. Salma Yaqoob is a Birtish politician, hence she speaks in her capacity as a member of the Respect party - not from a moralistic or religious perspective. I don't know that the Muslims in Britain have a unified view, but judging from the MCB I'd say my opinion is quite marginal. However, I am speaking from a moral perspective and they from a political perspective (already built on liberal and secular principles). But I guess there are also enough conceptual tools within our legal system that allows for this moral perspective to be heard, hence the decision of the Home Office.
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Feb 16, 2009 12:48:27 GMT
Free speech is a cultural achievement. It has a number of rationales. It protects the right of the weak to speak truth to power. It is egalitarian, It protects the utterance of unpopular truth. And it honors the dignity of the individual, who has a value the majority cannot strip from him or her (Islam notwithstanding).
Of course it can be used to incite harm to others and spread willful error. It's prerogatives are not absolute (yelling fire in a crowded theater). But not all of what Geert Wilder's message (though I do not like the man) is that which I see no value in hearing. Some of it may be true. I don't want him gagged just to please those who don't like what he has to say. I have had to bear a great deal of criticism of Christianity, some of it from you (and some of it vitriolic), but I think you have every right to speak out.
I am even less sympathetic to the idea that speech should be circumscribed by the community values because I am a victim of that kind of censorship right now. I am an academic in a politically correct environment that enforces its dogma. If as a Catholic I were to publicly protest abortion (I don't--may God have mercy on my soul) I would be publicly attacked. If I were to speak out against homosexuality, I would be ostracized and, should I persevere, probably stripped of tenure and fired. Speech codes based on hate speech standards (so now we reach the domain of hate thought crimes--an abomination) have made steady inroads in the West. It is time to rebel.
And Zameel, I cannot tell you how terrifying I find this argument coming from a Muslim who has made clear his cultural and religious disdain for Christianity. I am prepared to die to defend free speech in the West.
Sincerely,
Richard Moorton
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 14:03:22 GMT
Free speech is a cultural achievement. It has a number of rationales. It protects the right of the weak to speak truth to power. It is egalitarian, It protects the utterance of unpopular truth. And it honors the dignity of the individual, who has a value the majority cannot strip from him or her (Islam notwithstanding). See, I agree with ‘protecting the right of the weak to speak truth to power’ [and I quoted the hadith before ‘The best Jihad is a true word before a tyrant ruler’ (Tirmidhi)] and ‘egalitarianism’ [as the Qur’an says ‘O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of God, is the best in conduct. Lo! God is Knower, Aware.’ (49:13)] and the honour and dignity of the individual human being which both the Qur’an and hadith affirm. But how does this translate to a policy of ‘freedom of speech’? What is the value that is being promoted? Arguably, ‘freedom of speech’ protects none of the above, unless it is channeled for the purpose of accountability, dignity and equality. Unless we start with those principles, ‘free speech’ won’t take us there. Liberals say: individuals have a right to swear at their parents; Islam says: the individual has a duty not to. There is an inversion of emphasis and that I think is vital to a healthy society. And of course the logical contradiction inherent in a policy of ‘freedom of speech’: Of course it can be used to incite harm to others and spread willful error. It's prerogatives are not absolute (yelling fire in a crowded theater). But not all of what Geert Wilder's message (though I do not like the man) is that which I see no value in hearing. Some of it may be true. I don't want him gagged just to please those who don't like what he has to say. I have had to bear a great deal of criticism of Christianity, some of it from you (and some of it vitriolic), but I think you have every right to speak out The reason you are defending Wilders here is not ‘free speech’ as such but that you think there might have been some value in giving him a platform. That can be argued either way, free speech notwithstanding. Many Britons see him as a bigot who would only provoke further unrest in the British community – here, society and social cohesion is favoured over an individual’s right to speak. What inherent value is there in free speech? And are you ok with people swearing and insulting each other – which if you value free speech you should not only condone but encourage? We all value truth, progress, reason and justice [the early church did not value reason or justice, hence the residual compensation through advocacy of free speech]; hence it is our values that should determine what is said, not free speech for the sake of free speech. If free speech will result in injustice, backwardness and falsehood then it should be discouraged. Criticism is not the problem, but the objective and purpose of such rhetoric. Wilders openly said his reason for screening Fitna was to cause offence – if that is his clear intention, then why should we give him a platform to speak or show his film? And what have we lost thereby? I am even less sympathetic to the idea that speech should be circumscribed by the community values because I am a victim of that kind of censorship right now. I am an academic in a politically correct environment that enforces its dogma. If as a Catholic I were to publicly protest abortion (I don't--may God have mercy on my soul) I would be publicly attacked. If I were to speak out against homosexuality, I would be ostracized and, should I persevere, probably stripped of tenure and fired. Speech codes based on hate speech standards (so now we reach the domain of hate thought crimes--an abomination) have made steady inroads in the West. It is time to rebel Which is proof of the failiure of liberalism: by promoting ‘free speech’ and individualism it creates its own set of doctrines that cannot be blasphemed, like speaking out against abortion. If you so disdain these liberal values why do you promote free speech which is borne of the same liberal system – clearly showing the failiure of such a project? The problem is not speech being ‘circumscribed by the community values’ but the values themselves; if the values are good, like justice, equality and rationality then free speech will be inevitable by-products but in a helpful way; if the values are bad, like unreservedly promoting the interests of the Church whether it be for or against reason, then useful free speech will not result. And Zameel, I cannot tell you how terrifying I find this argument coming from a Muslim who has made clear his cultural and religious disdain for Christianity. I am prepared to die to defend free speech in the West I don’t disdain Christianity. Its a sibling faith and I believe God’s mercy is wide enough to include Christians ignorant of proper Islam. The Prophet showed only reverance and kindness for the Christian king of Abyssinia who protected the Muslim refugees. But I have theological and other problems with it. Nonetheless, I’d be interested to know what do you imagine has been lost in disallowing offesive speech? Honest criticism and dialogue will continue, with Islam’s support, and no core value is being threatened, so exactly what is terrifying?
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Feb 16, 2009 14:29:53 GMT
If you can't hear it you can't judge it, and I am tired of other people making the judgment for me. In my community a discussion stopper is "that offends me." Tough. My feelings are raped every day and nobody cares.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 14:49:59 GMT
The offence is not the problem, but the intention to offend is. If something is done merely for the sake of offence, provocation and insult, I don't see that as a healthy approach. Genuine criticism and dialogue is what is required. There is nothing in 'free speech' that offers what you're looking for.
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Feb 16, 2009 15:04:22 GMT
The intention to offend can be didactic (why does that offend me? Should I be offended?) Furthermore, I am not at all against trying to educate people to be civil, which controls how free speech will be used. The Founding Fathers took difference of opinion (faction) for granted, and they wanted it to find a release and perhaps resolution in speech. If it fuels enacted aggression, that is against the law. I am not against sanctions for free speech under certain circumstances. If you are trying to whip up a lynch mob, or slandering someone, sanctlions are certainly appropriate. But don't tape up people's mouths in a free society. It is the first step down a very bad road.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 15:15:21 GMT
You're effectively agreeing with what I said: freedom of speech itself is not valued unless it is within the context of the law and social values. Islam encourages dialogue and debate especially with the 'People of the Book', hence different opinions are given a voice; the value here, however, is reason and truth, not 'free speech' which is only a result of following through with that value.
The problem that now afflicts us is that 'freedom of speech' itself has become an argument and a value without the grounds for its benefit; hence, we argue Wilders should be given a platform because of 'freedom of speech' and no other reason; we no longer consider the benefits or harms, but the mere fact of speaking freely as something to be valued. If Wilders wants to come to Britain simply to provoke, what good is there in allowing it? If 'free speech' can be both good and bad, it means it has no intrinsic value and should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not for its own sake.
|
|