Is There Such a Thing As Freedom Of Speech?

[dusk]

You said there are limits, but nobody can draw these limits.

Is that what you are saying?

I am saying you cannot make a law about what is offensive concerning religious stuff. Because it cannot be enforced in a fair manner that doesn't turn south. In true freedom of religion also religions that are offensive in nature towards other beliefs are protected. If the Christian says you will burn in hell because you don't embrace Christ that might be offensive and you are a fool for not seeing the truth. Any dominating religion can suppress other believes just by saying they find them offensive. Christians vs. Satanists for an example. One denomination against the other.

People have to work this out between themselves outside of courts. Offense in and of itself does not suffice for a state law. There would need to be some objectively measurable harm. There is the harm and offense principle in freedom of speech with especially the latter being really tricky ground. There is lots of judicial material concerning it on google scholar afaik my law classes lie a little while back. Offense is so tricky that many I listened to in the west think that way too much is already banned. If you can escape the offense like not clicking on a youtube link the consensus is nothing should be banned on those grounds.
A religious offense is too subjective to be objectively decided in court.

In many cases it is also not really that difficult to deal with it. If one doesn't like the australian comedian Jim Jeffries, nobody has to go to his shows or watch the youtube videos. Just because some people don't find it funny and only offensive doesn't mean it should be banned. The audience decides and if nobody finds it funny and pays than he will give up. The audience loves him. He bashes all religions equally. Christians more than the rest.

It is also not nice if an elementary pupil in school calls the other names but there won't be legal laws about it. There is a limit to what you can put into laws because laws can be misused. In a democracy the separation of powers, protection of minorities and the expression of opinions even dumb ones are essential. Which is why no sane person would consider Russia a democracy because democracy is not only voting every couple years, at least not the kind that is taught in any half decent law school around the world.

 

[Good brother]

The tragic consequences triggered by the recent sleazy anti-Islam film “innocence of Muslims” have presented several challenges to political and religious leaders in the West as well as the Muslim world.
They have also shown how an utterly insignificant act by a little known, though malicious individual, could reverberate fast throughout the globe, causing lethal and fatal repercussions and destroying and ending the lives of innocent people.
The modern media, in its numerous forms, have certainly played a role in spreading the sleazy film and also in provoking and infuriating Muslims. None the less, the media’s role hasn’t exceeded that of the proverbial messenger.
In the final analysis, the media didn’t make the news, it just reported it.
The anti-Islam film is undoubtedly a malicious and wicked act meant to insult and provoke. This is what the producer of the film himself said of his intent behind embarking on the cheap feat.
But Muslims have not acted ideally, too. They seem to have overreacted to the original calculated provocation by attacking embassies and indulging in violence, which led to the spilling of innocent blood.
I believe all sides, those who made, financed and promoted the film, as well as those mobs that overreacted to it, are wrong.
But saying so is not enough, if only to prevent the recurrence of similar events.
I urge responsible political and religious leaders in the West and Muslim world to make every possible effort to strike a delicate balance between freedom of speech and misusing or abusing that freedom, e.g. by insulting religious symbols and offending religious faith.
I am not talking about legitimate freedom of speech and expression and other civil liberties which we all value and respect. What I have in mind is deliberately offending religious sensibilities with malice aforethought.
This is more than just an academic matter since ignoring it does obviously cause the shedding of innocent blood.
Having studied at and graduated from a number of American colleges, I realize how most Americans are jealously fanatical about preserving and clinging to their constitution, especially the First Amendment.
However, Americans and others westerners ought to understand that the religious and cultural traditions of other people, e.g. Muslims, ought to be respected as well. The First Amendment must not be used as an excuse to offend Muslims and their faith, as well as other religious traditions.
There are many wise people in America who could find the perfect formula to resolve this problem once and for all. In the final analysis, the American constitution was founded and shaped in a way that would protect religion from the interference, hegemony and encroachment of the state, not the other way around.
And it is not impossible to strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the right of adherents of various religious groups not to be offended. After all, one’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins.
In some western countries, laws have been enacted against those who deny the holocaust. And in America itself, the country of the First Amendment, politicians and journalist think ten times before thinking of criticizing Israel and Jews.
Hence, the visibly malicious discourse against Islam and its symbols in the US and some other Western countries has more to do with a morbid and hateful proclivity to malign, smear and besmirch and less with the legitimate practice of freedom of speech and expression.
In the final analysis, my right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel’s right to malign the Prophet of Islam in order to satisfy his sick Islamophobia.
The American Civil Liberty Union is likely to vociferously object to this argument. And they would probably make many counter arguments which may sound valid.
But the ACLU, which has done many good things and defended many good causes, can not guarantee that insulting religious symbols will not lead to further bloodshed. Which brings us to the ultimate argument that in such circumstances when one is faced with conflicting rights and conflicting freedoms, it is never enough to be right; one has to be wise as well? Hence, the need for the delicate, fine balances between freedom of expression and the right not to be offended.
I also hope that the tragic events of the past few days will prompt a genuine religious dialogue between Muslim and Christian leaders. The task of maintaining the peace, let alone building stable and friendly relations between the followers of the great religions is too paramount a task to be left for pyromaniacs on both sides.
We must start this dialogue right away. We owe it to the victims of the latest madness to see to it that fanatics and ignoramuses on both sides of the isle are not allowed to savage our faces and burn our hearts with the fire of their ignorance and fanaticism.
By Khalid Amayreh

 

[Good brother]

[h=2]Freedom of Expression or Freedom to Blaspheme?[/h] In this version of civilization, it is civilized behaviour to insult a religion. But it is uncivilized behaviour to protest against that insult. Does this make sense to you? It doesn't to me.
[h=6]By Mirza Yawar Baig, The Milli Gazette[/h] [h=6]Published Online: Sep 18, 2012[/h] Freedom of expression must not be confused with freedom from the consequences of expression. Exercising freedom and abusing it are not the same. The latter forfeits the former. Just because we are free to express ourselves, it doesn't free us from the responsibility for what we express. We are responsible for what we say and do and for the consequences thereof and so must consider carefully what we want to express. This is the basis of what we call civilized socially responsible behaviour. Once again we have an attack on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on whom it seems to be open season all the year round for people to take pot-shots. And then cry foul when those who love him get upset. The rule seems to be, “I will say or do whatever I want but you must not get offended.” Another rule, “Prove your maturity and culture by not being offended by insults.” Seems strange indeed to us, who are brought up in a culture where honour is not just important, it is everything. Respect for our signs and symbols is what our sense of honour is based on. And there is no symbol of our honour other than Allah Himself, that is more important than the Prophet (peace be upon him). So if someone insults him, it is very natural for a Muslim to feel sad and very upset. The claim of those who make these attacks is, “But we are not offended when someone blasphemes against Jesus or Moses. So how can you be offended when we insult Mohammed?” That is like saying, “I am not offended if you curse my parents and so you should also not be offended if I curse your parents.” Our response is of course, “We have never cursed your parents in the first place. And secondly if you are not offended if someone curses your parents it is a sign that you are lacking in a sense of honour, that you are shameless. How can you demand that we too should become shameless?” For the record, find me a film made by a Muslim which abuses Jesus or Moses? You won't find it because we revere them as prophets of Allah. So when Muslims have not done anything to abuse Christianity or Judaism, why should they be subjected to abuse from Christians and Jews (the people who allegedly made this ridiculous film) and be compelled to accept it? I am not for a moment justifying or countenancing the violent protests and the unfortunate killing of innocent people. However, I am writing this to request all responsible people to seriously wake up and start asking some pointed questions. One of which should be, “What was the need for this film in the first place? What is wrong with letting people believe whatever they want? What is wrong with leaving people alone with their religions — which is a basic human right?” I was interested to read one of the comments of the learned viewers of the film who said, “In all their history, Muslims have contributed to the development of mankind less than a bunch of donkeys.” What do you do with such ignorance? Another one demands that he will screen this film along with clips from other films which are insulting to Hindus, Christians and Jews and he demands that people must sit and watch all of them with equanimity. Isn't that the strangest statement? For someone to make this insane demand is not considered insane. But when someone protests at this unprovoked attack on his honour, he is guilty of intolerance. Why must people be forced to tolerate insults? Why must people be forced to sacrifice their honour just because those who have no honour want to exercise their fancy? Is this fair? Is anyone interested in justice anymore? If we go by this logic then the right to safety and security must be balanced by the right to terrorize a population. The right to education must be balanced by the right to remain ignorant. The right to health must be balanced by the right to sickness. The right to marriage must be balanced by the right to rape and so on. Crazy, isn't it? Just as crazy as the call that the right to freedom of religion must be balanced by the right to blaspheme any religion. These people want to impose the rule on us that if the followers of any religion want to practice their religion then they must be prepared to accept the fact that all that they hold holy and sacred will be blasphemed, insulted, degraded and desecrated by other people who don't care about their feelings and they must accept this treatment without complaint. Doesn't that sound like a gross violation of human rights? It does, to me. Violence to human rights is not only physical violence. It is also violence that is psychological and mental. Ask any divorce lawyer who is suing on the basis of mental torture. This is an accepted principal in law. Freedom is defined as something that you are permitted to do as long as it does not violate someone else's freedom; does not hurt someone else; does not harm anyone else. That is why the famous saying, “Your freedom ends where my nose begins.” If we define freedom as the unbridled right of someone to do whatever he or she wants irrespective of what harm this action or speech may do to someone else's dignity, reputation, relationships or position, then we would have complete chaos and anarchy. Defined in the way the makers of this ridiculous film and their supporters are demanding, freedom of speech must be rechristened “freedom to abuse”, “freedom to hurt”, “freedom to damage”, “freedom to destroy”. This is a completely senseless argument and this behaviour is not civilized at all. It is barbarism and oppression at its worst. So what is so different when it is done by film-makers with the target being not one man or woman but an entire population? If anything, it must make the crime humungous in magnitude. Like murder, which when it is perpetrated against an entire population, becomes a holocaust and genocide. Ask the Jews who were the victims of this at the hands of Hitler. Of course that was before the West invented the term “collateral damage”. Otherwise they too, like the Iraqis and Palestinians, would have been mere statistics rather than innocent people who suffered one of the worst man-made disasters in the history of mankind. Unfortunately it seems to be by no means the last. Yet we are asked to accept this ridiculous argument that if we are practicing Christians then we must accept films that show Jesus as a fornicating rock star or his pictures holding a beer can in one hand and a cigarette in the other. If we are practicing Hindus then we must accept the pictures of the gods we worship, on toilet seats. And if we are practicing Muslims then we must accept the most obviously hatred-filled images of the one person who we hold the most respect-worthy, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). And all of us, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and others who have not been targeted yet are told that we have to accept someone's “right” to indulge his perversion at our expense. And if we dare to protest, then we will be labeled uncivilized, terrorists and anti-human. In this version of civilization, it is civilized behaviour to insult a religion. But it is uncivilized behaviour to protest against that insult. Does this make sense to you? It doesn't to me. But it seems to make sense to a small minority of people who are seeking to impose their warped sense of values on the rest of the world. The question is: what should be our reaction? Ideally I would love to ignore this thing entirely. But I'm afraid that it may only make such people bolder and eventually we will get to a point where we can't ignore it anymore and then the reactions are more destructive. In my view it is important for people of all religions to come together and stand together to ensure that freedom of worship and freedom of expression is ensured for everyone. And that this is done with an understanding of responsibility for expression. There can be no freedom of worship or expression when some people insult and abuse what someone else worships or reveres. Insulting someone personally is not accepted as a freedom in any civilized society. If someone did that they would become liable for legal action and punishment. So how can it be accepted to insult someone or something that an individual worships or considers holy?

 

[Good brother]

[h=2]Saturday, May 22, 2010[/h] [h=3]Islam's view towards Freedom of Speech[/h]
Islam and Freedom of speech has become a contentious issue in recent times. The limits of what is, and what is not, acceptable speech is becoming a new battleground between Islam and the west. The issue came to a head in September 2005 a few days before Ramadan when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.


The newspaper editor Flemming Rose, made the objective of printing the cartoons very clear. He said, "Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter."[1]

Geert Wilders, a Dutch Politician who has made a career out of his opposition to Islam has publicly called for a ban on the Holy Qu'ran, and produced a film last year called ‘Fitna' in which he equates Islam with violence, communism and Nazism.

This month, the UN is hosting a World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Geneva, Switzerland. The conflict over freedom of speech raised itself again in this conference because some Muslim countries campaigned for a declaration that would equate criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights.[2] This is seen as a way of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Islamic ‘aqeeda. Western countries, however, objected to such a declaration because they say it would limit freedom of speech.[3] After a number of western countries including the US and EU threatened to boycott the conference this clause was eventually dropped, along with clauses criticising Israeli's inhumane treatment of the Palestinians.[4]

Freedom of Speech is an emotive topic in the west since it is one of their fundamental values. As Muslims we need to understand the reality of freedom of speech and the Islamic viewpoint towards it.

Origins of Freedom of Speech

Europe lived in the dark ages for hundreds of years ruled by tyrannical Kings on behalf of an oppressive Church. Book burning, inquisitions, torture and death were common place for those who dared to confront this tyranny. Scientists, thinkers and scholars were all subject to harassment and even imprisonment for their views. The famous scientist Galileo, for example, was convicted of heresy in 1633 and spent the rest of his life under house arrest for claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

After the reformation and the adoption of secularism in Western Europe and newly independent America, the shackles of the church were thrown off in public life. Fundamental to these new secular states was the adoption of freedom of the individual, ownership, expression and religion for all their citizens.

In the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,' a fundamental document of the French revolution it states in article 11:

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789The famous First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." December 15, 1791.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Therefore freedom of speech forms one of the cornerstones of the western way of life, and for them is considered a fundamental human right.

Absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[5]

However, the reality is that every society including the west has limits on public speech and views they don't like. The only difference is in who defines the limits of this speech and how restrictive these limits are. Racism, national security, holocaust denial, incitement, glorification of terrorism, racial hatred and libel among many others, are all limits imposed on freedom of speech by western nations.

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten could never have printed cartoons denying the holocaust in the name of free speech. Geert Wilders could never have produced a film likening Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, without charges of anti-Semitism being brought against him.

It's contradictions like these, on the limits of free speech where the clash of values between Islam and the west is currently taking place.

No freedom of speech for Muslims

The controversy over this month's UN World Conference Against Racism is a stark example of this clash. The build up to the conference and agreement on a final draft resolution has highlighted this rift over the limits on freedom of speech.

Differences initially arose over wording in the draft declaration that criticised Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Israel, Canada, Italy and America announced that they would not participate in the conference unless this wording was removed.

A spokesman for Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, said the declaration, which relates to the situation in the Palestinian territories, contains "unacceptable, aggressive and anti-Semitic phrases".

The EU was also unhappy with resolutions criticising Israel and sought to remove at least five paragraphs from the draft such as the phrase that, "in order to consolidate the Israeli occupation, [Palestinians] have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture."[6]

The other contentious resolution that some western nations wanted dropped was, "to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols." This was added by some Muslim countries as a means of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Holy Qur'an which we have witnessed recently in Europe. Western countries were unhappy with this resolution because it limited their freedom of speech i.e. the freedom to attack Islam. This was dropped from the final draft and now the resolution simply states, "recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions..."[7]

Therefore for the west it's perfectly acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to account the brutal policies of another country in this instance Israel, but it's not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم.

There is no clearer example of this than in Geert Wilder's campaign to ban the Holy Qur'an on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact Wilder's was asked about this during a recent interview with the Boston Globe.

Q: An American defender of free speech would say "Mein Kampf" shouldn't be banned, the Koran shouldn't be banned; books shouldn't be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they're hateful ideas - the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?

A: I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.

Q. Doesn't that contradict your defense of free speech?
A: ... I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line - incitement of violence.[8]

In other words, you only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas because Islamic ideas are an "incitement to violence".

Europe is increasingly using limits on free speech such as glorification of terrorism, incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence as ways of clamping down on Islamic expression.

Peaceful Muslim demonstrations, Islamic political parties and Islamic literature are all in the firing line simply for expressing Islamic opinions contrary to the western way of life. Muslims expressing opinions the west doesn't like are branded by the media as ‘preachers of hate', militants and extremists.

Freedom of speech is a colonial tool

"You only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas" not only holds true for Muslims living in the west but also when it comes to western colonial interests in the Muslim world.

Many Muslims are attracted to the concept of freedom of speech since they see it as a means of accounting the oppressive dictatorships they currently live under. Yet when Islamic groups speak out against their rulers and are subsequently tortured and imprisoned by their regimes western governments remain silent. In fact Britain and America openly support these ‘western friendly' regimes.

Egypt as an example has been under a state of emergency since 1967. Thousands of members of the Islamic opposition have been tortured and imprisoned by the Egyptian regime. Current estimates are that there are 30,000 political prisoners in Egypt. However, since 1979 Egypt has been the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East after Israel. The west turns a blind eye to this clampdown on political expression because it suits their colonial interests.

On the 50th anniversary of the uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet there was widespread media coverage and support for the Tibetan cause in the west. Compare this to the almost non-existent coverage on China's daily oppression of Muslims in Xinxiang. At the same time as the 50th anniversary in Tibet was taking place the Chinese were clamping down heavily on Muslims involved in what they call "illegal religious activity". A secretary with Hotan's Communist Party Propaganda Department confirmed that some illegal religious activity has been halted and illegal books, writings, computer discs and audio tapes had been confiscated.[9] The only difference between Tibet and Xinxiang is that the opposition in Xinxiang is Islamic calling for Islamic ideas rather than western ideas.

Islamic view towards Freedom of Speech

The concept of ‘freedom of speech' is derived from the Capitalist ideology that is based on the belief that God and religion should be separated from life's affairs (secularism). Human beings define how to live their lives free of the constraints of religion which is why freedom of individual, ownership, religion and speech are essential cornerstones of Capitalism. The right to speak and what are the limits of speech are therefore all defined by human beings.

This view completely contradicts Islam. In Islam it is the Creator of human beings Allah سبحانه وتعالى who gave the right of speech to people and defined the limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair) or remain silent."[10]

Khair in this hadith means Islam or what Islam approves of.[11]

Every word a human being speaks is recorded by the two angels Kiraman Katibeen. Even the speaking of one ‘bad' word may lead someone to the hellfire.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The person who utters a word which meets with Allah's favour may think it has not been heard, yet for this Allah will raise him to a higher level of Paradise. Conversely, the person who utters a word that stirs Allah to anger may give no thought to what he said, only to have Allah cast him in Hell for seventy years."[12]

This is why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم emphasised the importance of controlling the tongue.

Mu'az ibn Jabal narrated: I was in company with the Prophet in a travel, and one day I was close to him while we were travelling. So I said: "O Messenger of Allah, tell me of an act which will take me into Paradise and will keep me away from Hell fire...shall I not tell you of the foundation of all of that?" I said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah," and he took hold of his tongue and said: "Restrain this." I said: "O Prophet of Allah, will what we say be held against us?" He said: "May your mother be bereaved of you, Mu'az ! Is there anything that topples people on their faces - or he said on their noses into Hell-fire other than the jests of their tongues?"[13]

There are some situations where Islam has obliged Muslims to speak out against oppression and evil (munkar).

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever saw a Munkar, let him change it by his hand and if he cannot then by his tongue and if he cannot then with his heart and that is the weakest of Imaan."[14]

Many Muslims nowadays are attracted towards the concepts of human rights and freedom of speech due to the medieval oppression waged against them by the corrupt governments in the Muslim world.

In the majority of Muslim countries today speaking out against the munkar and oppression of the governments is made illegal by the rulers and their agents. They brutally suppress all political opposition and try to silence Muslims through torture and imprisonment. Even in the west they are also moving towards silencing Muslims who criticise foreign policy or hold what they deem ‘extreme' political views under the guise of anti-terror policy.

Despite all these limits they are trying to impose on Muslims speaking out, the fact remains that it is Allah سبحانه وتعالى who defined what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. Therefore if He سبحانه وتعالى obliges Muslims to speak out against munkar and oppression then no government in the Muslim world or western world can take away this right.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul-Muttalib and a man who stood to an oppressor ruler where he ordered him and forbade him so he (the ruler) killed him."[15]

Muslims who account their governments or speak out against oppression are not doing it because of freedom of speech or because the west allows them to speak. Rather they are doing it as an obligation from Islam even if it leads to death.

Conclusion

Freedom of speech is a western concept that completely contradicts Islam. In reality there is no such thing as absolute free speech. What exists is speech within predefined limits that differ between nations.

Nowadays freedom of speech is used as a colonial tool in the Muslim world to support the propagation of western ideas and to suppress Islamic ideas. Increasingly this is happening within western societies also as anti-terror policies are used to clampdown on what are deemed as ‘extreme' opinions.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Creator and NOT human beings decides the limits on speech. We will be accountable for every word spoken on the Day of Judgement. If Allah سبحانه وتعالى has ordered us to speak in certain circumstances such as accounting the rulers and speaking out against oppression then no government in the world can take away that right no matter how hard they try.

As Muslims we are in no need of any other system of life except the Islamic system, and no other source of legislation except the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Therefore when we call for accountability in the Muslim world this should not be a call for introducing freedom of speech but a call for introducing the Islamic Shariah which enshrines the right to speech among many other rights.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "Whoever introduces into this affair of ours that which is not of it, then it is rejected." Al-Bukhari and Muslim related it, and in a narration of Muslim's there is, "Whoever does an act for which there is no command of ours then it is rejected."

 

[Good brother]

Free Speech or Hate Speech?
February , 2006

By Faisal Kutty
“I don’t know of anything more important than freedom of expression,” said former Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory commenting on the Court’s decision to uphold Jim Keegstra’s conviction for willfully promoting hatred in 1991.
The offensive Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad have now ignited global interest in the subject. To date four Canadian media outlets have entered the fray.
Despite death and destruction, some free speech advocates have characterized this as a defining battle. It has now become a clash of extremes with both sides reeking of double standards. Muslim extremists, some of whom regularly insult others, and dictatorships are trying to claim the moral high ground by defending the sacred in clearly non-sacred ways. An equally hypocritical extreme in the West is pretending as if there are no limits and as if subjective restraint is not exercised daily.
Many of the nations where these cartoons have been published have laws against anti-Semitism and rightly so (for an excellent summary of the situation in Europe see Professor Ruti Teitel’s article writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060215_teitel.html). In fact, about two weeks ago Italian prosecutors even announced charges against eleven individuals who displayed Nazi symbols during a football game. Meanwhile, media in Italy have reproduced the cartoons with impunity.

Indeed, even in Denmark there are limits. The offending newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, refused to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003 because they would “offend.” Moreover, section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy while section 266b prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade others on various grounds. Of course even limits and laws are viewed through political, social and philosophical lens and so the public prosecutor determined that these cartoons did not violate any laws.

Freedom of expression is alive and well in Canada, but cannot be used as a carte blanche. We have restrictions. We have libel laws and censorship of various forms in keeping with “community standards.” Moreover, criminal and human rights legislation also restrict free speech in the interest of protecting minorities and maintaining harmony.
Section 319 of the Criminal Code proscribes statements that incite or promote hate. Convictions have been few and far between because of the specific intent required, but it has withstood constitutional challenges.

Subsection 319(1) makes it an offence to incite “hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” To be convicted an accused must have communicated statements in a public place and ought to have known that the incitement was likely to have brought about a breach of the peace.
The SCC has held that the mens rea required is less than the intentional promotion of hatred, but the immediacy of the breach of the peace would make it extremely difficult to convict unless the cartoons were being provocatively displayed in a mosque or Muslim gathering.
The second and more relevant offence is set out in subsection 319(2) which makes it an offence to “communicate statements, other than in private conversation, that willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group…” The mens rea will flow from the establishment of the elements of the criminal act. The trier of fact must not only consider the statement (broadly defined) objectively, but also with regard to the circumstances, the manner and tone used and the persons to whom the message was addressed. The SCC held in R. v. Keegstra that willful blindness (“knew or strongly suspected”) as to the consequences is sufficient to satisfy the mens rea requirement.

Though it can be argued that the cartoons in and of themselves may not be caught under subsection 319(2), I believe that there are strong grounds to lay a charge against those who republish them now. I base this viewpoint on at least five reasons, the first being that the news value has diminished given that anyone wishing to understand the controversy and see the cartoons can do so without having them republished. Secondly, at least two of the cartoons, especially the one showing the prophet with the bomb and the one calling for an end to suicide bombings because of a shortage of virgins, suggest that Muslims are necessarily and inherently evil (this is a reasonable interpretation), because a Muslim by definition tries to emulate the prophet. The issue for most is not whether the prophet should be pictured. It is his portrayal, essentially, as a poster boy for al-Qaeda and by extension, Muslims in general as violent and therefore worthy of hate. Thirdly, given the fact that Muslims — both observant and non-observant — have made it very clear that these are offensive and violate their dignity as a community (granted this is an alien notion in our individualistic society), republishing them is therefore intentionally provocative and can promote hatred. Fourthly, it can be reasonably argued that the intent behind their publication in the current climate will serve no real free speech purpose and may in fact expose Muslims to hate.

Lastly, I believe that the full context of its initial publication can shed some light on the intent behind its continued publication. They were published against a backdrop of ever increasing levels of Islamophobia and racism, where even the Queen of the land had called for the demonization of Muslims.
The following quote from the South African newspaper the Mail & Guardian is illustrative:

“Further, they were published in Denmark, which has been named by the European Union Commission on Human Rights as the most racist country in Europe. It has witnessed a large number of attacks against Muslims, some resulting in the killings of Muslim immigrants. And, they were published by a newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism and which called for a fascist dictatorship in Denmark. Jyllands-Posten is also anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Within such a context, these cartoons are clearly hate speech. Their publication is an ontological attack against the foundations of Islam.”
Indeed, some commentators have argued that given the foregoing, the aim of the cartoons was nothing short of inciting hatred against “the terrorist within”.

However, conviction under ss. 319(2) would be extremely difficult given the evidentiary burden and indeed even initiating the prosecution requires the consent of the attorney general – a Herculean task for communities that often lack political clout. Moreover, the accused has a number of defenses available under ss. 319(3) which dilute the provisions effectiveness, but minimizes abuse.

Though not specifically designed to regulate speech it may be easier to pursue a hate-monger using the lower civil standard of proof required under human rights legislation. Such legislation is concerned with the broader effect of hate and not just the intended effect. Legislation in both British Columbia and Alberta have been successfully used to curb hateful speech. The SCC has not yet ruled on whether this would be ultra vires by infringing on federal jurisdiction over criminal law.

Muslims in Canada have acted responsibly. Editors must reciprocate and exercise their rights tempered by civic responsibility. The community will be looking to the various Attorneys General to enforce the laws against those who cross the line and join the bandwagon of hate in the name of freedom of expression.

As Mr. Justice Cory pointed out more than 15 years ago, laws against hate were justified because inciting hatred can be “as damaging as actual physical violence.”
“Limits on free speech,” said the justice, “must be considered as much as the right itself.”
Amen.
Faisal Kutty is a lawyer with the firm of Baksh & Kutty. He is a board member with the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations and general counsel for the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association.

An abridged version of this article appeared in Lawyers Weekly (February 24, 2006).

 

[Good brother]

[h=3]A response on the movie “Innocence of Muslims”[/h]
After the Danish cartoons, “Fitna” movie en and other vile attempts to take down the lofty values and personalities within Islam and make it a subject to mock, there has appeared a cheap B movie by the title of “Innocence of Muslims” which has been produced solely for the following aim; spreading as much lies and slander about the most beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him), his wife ‘Aisha (Blessings be upon her) and his companions (May Blessings be upon them). As a reaction to this, Muslims from all corners of the Islamic world went out on the streets in large numbers and protested against this slandering of their most beloved. But these demonstrations were quickly labeled as barbaric and Al-Qaeda along with extremist groups would be behind this, due to the black flags.

First of all, it should be emphasized that Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) is being praised daily in their prayers on numerous occasions by 2 billion people. He is the Messenger of Allah and he is the best and only example for the Muslims; his actions, words and even his silence are taken as a source and reference to arrange the daily lives of Muslims. He is more loved by Muslims then their own selves. This is the bond which Muslims feel with him. So these demonstrations can therefore not be ascribed to “a couple of extremist Muslims”, because this is far from reality. This issue is an extremely sensitive case which strikes the heart of all Muslims.

The media and certain politicians responded quickly to label these demonstrations as barbaric and intolerant. In reality, it is this terrible movie which is ultimately barbaric and it is not the Muslims who are intolerant, but it’s the liberal democratic thought which allows under the excuse of “freedom of speech” that people with a different thought can be deeply hurt and insulted. The west calls itself civilized, but what kind of civilization is this if people can not meet with each other in a civilized way without getting into insulting and slander?
Furthermore, where was this so-called magnificent “freedom of speech” when a man recently called the queen to be a “fraud” and a “sinner”? This man, who was mentally weak, got treated as a criminal and the judge sentenced him to prison for several months. Instead of immediately condemning the attacks of Muslims on western embassies, they should investigate why Muslims directed their anger towards these exact places. The west has been guilty for decades for their direct involvement in their internal affairs and exploitation. Was it not the west that has put dictators and tyrants in power of the Muslim countries and supported them entirely throughout the years? Weren’t the Arabic uprisings not a direct result of criminal policy of the west within the Muslim countries? And even after making thousands of sacrifices during these Arabic uprisings to remove these dictators and tyrants who were supported by the west, the Muslims still see the tentacles of the west being deeply rooted in their countries. There is no real change in their situation. Their longings, ideals and demands are still not being granted by these new leaders. The severe approach of the army and police against the demonstrators is one of the examples. Many demonstrators have lost their lives because their own police was not there to protect them, but to help the west to exploit them. The insult of their Prophet by the west was just a drop too much for the Muslims!

The Muslims expected that their new leaders would take a firm stance against the insult of their Prophet. But since these new leaders are still serving in the interest of the west and not the interest of the Muslims, the Muslims have now been forced to take their own initiative. These new leaders should have at least ended all diplomatic ties with America and sent their ambassadors directly to their home along with the American military basis and postpone all oil contracts and economic ties.
Okay Pala

 

[Good brother]

2006
Millions and millions of Muslims were shocked and outraged by the 12 cartoons that were first published in a Danish chronicle. Their justification behind publishing such cartoons that offended Prophet Muhammad was Freedom of Speech.

When was Freedom of Speech a means to insult or offend? How can we call it 'Freedom of Speech' when it hurts the feelings of human beings all over the world?

The cartoonist who drew these cartoons has a personal problem that he should deal with by himself, or even with the help of others.

That is the problem of ignorance. Ignorance of the true message of Islam, ignorance of whom the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) really was.


If he (the cartoonist or others) would spend few time reading the noble Quran and the authentic teachings of Prophet Muhammad, I think he would not even have the intention to draw such cartoons.

He obviously judged Islam by the actions of some Muslims. Like every other community, there are few 'bad apples' and it is unfortunate that the media sometimes focuses on them.

The British philosopher, Thomas Carlyle, wrote: "It is a great shame for anyone to listen to the accusation that Islam is a lie and that Muhammad was a fabricator and a deceiver. We saw that he remained steadfast upon his principles, with firm determination; kind and generous, compassionate, pious, virtuous, with real manhood, hardworking and sincere. Besides all these qualities, he was lenient with others, tolerant, kind, cheerful and praiseworthy ..."

Prophet Muhammad was the final messenger to the universe, he was sent as a mercy "And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for the "Alamin" (mankind, jinns and all that exists) [Quran 21:107].

He came with the same message and principles that his predecessors (prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, peace be upon them) came with. That is the message of devotion, submission, and obedience to the Lord of the universe (Islam).

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) came with several proofs and miracles to show that he is truthful. One of his miracles, actually the miracle of the miracles and the immortal proof, is the Quran. It is the only revealed book whose text stands pure and uncorrupted after more than 1,400 years.

This proof carries its own evidence proving its divine authorship. I personally advise you to read and study the book from any angle you wish, scrutinise it, and most important of all, see if it calls its followers to 'terrorism' or not.

If you are still in doubt, why not accept the challenge : "Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." [Quran 4:82]

"Freedom of speech is vital part of out liberties" (Robin, London). That's absolutely true, but as with other rights, with certain limitations.

What is the meaning of diverse communities living together in peace and harmony when we don't respect each other and consider other's faith? "And do not abuse those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits they should abuse Allah out of ignorance." [Quran 6:108]

 

[Good brother]

Freedom to Speak
The freedom to speak is an enshrined value of the Western world. Something they pride themselves on and wish to promote in the Muslim world. So when the Danish cartoons happened, it was the freedom of speech debate which took centre stage. When the film Fitnah was created it was all protected by this freedom of speech value. One should be able to criticise and debate ideas, with openness as this is what creates a society which thinks about what it believes in, and questions it. So questioning the Islamic traditions in fitnah was the freedom to question and probe. Depicting the Prophet SAW as a terrorist was all about questioning the place of Islam and the Prophet SAW.


Therefore one would hope that the ability to question and debate the values embedded in the society all around us would be encouraged, urged. However the recent war on terror in Britain has set quite a different standard for Muslims, when it comes to their ability to speak and debate freely. If Muslims voice their different views about politics, society and question the norms which people swallow as universal around them, freedom of speech suddenly has no place for them. If Muslims believe that the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan is fully legitimate, as these lands have been bombed and destroyed, masses killed without any type of consent of the people, then are we supporters of terrorism? Because we believe in the self-determination of a people who are in the hands of foreign occupation? Did not Britain fight back during the Blitz? Did they welcome the bombing of their cities and embrace the Germans with open hands? Would we call those who assisted in the war effort to counter the blitz, insurgents and terrorists, simply because they wanted sovereignty in their own land?

What about those who believe the values of the people of the Muslim world should shape the way they live. The Muslim world should be allowed to let their way of life manifest itself in society and wiithin the state. Is this barbaric, backward if they want to live by the just Economic system of Islam, which distributes the wealth of the state to the poor, instead of letting the rich and elite accumulate it? A system which provides stability putting the interests of the people first, above the speculative markets? What about if they want their social values to manifest in society so that men and women maintain a respect towards each other instead of being encouraged to sexualise one another? So that family units are sanctified over individual's freedom to run after desires and temptations. Is this extremism? As if you call for a Caliphate, the Khilafah system, for the Muslim world, believing that democracy only perpetuates tyranny of man, allowing corruption of power and wealth; you have rejected the values of the West and have gone to far for this society.

But is this not the West who prides itself on the debate of ideas and values? Is this not the West who encourages people who criticise and discuss what leads to better societies? More harmonious societies?

Questions. Questions. No one seems to really answer. The problem is, the Government today, the prospective Conservative Government today is banding around alot of what will never be allowed. Extremism will never be allowed in British society, terrorism will never be allowed in British society and as Cameron has promised, he will ban Islamic groups who call for such terrorism once he comes to power. But Cameron has been quick to shove the debate about productive values in a very broken society which he wishes to mend, under the carpet. As these Islamic groups are those who are not and have never been engaged in any type of violent extremism, but have always been at the forefront of speaking out against colonisliam, occupation and the ability for Islam to solve the broken problems of society in the Muslim world. They want to discuss what values could potentially mend a society broken socially, economically and politically. So clearly Cameron's promise to ban such groups essentially means the promise to ban discussion and debate about values in society and silence those who actually think and don't just adopt the status quo blindly - That democracy is supreme. Rather maybe Cameron could stop to think - The reasons why some Muslims believe and call so wholeheartedly for Islamic law in the Muslim world, is because they wish more than anything for justice to return to our world today, the ceasing of the rich usurping the poor, and the powerful oppressing the weak. Something he could actually learn from maybe?
[h=2]Tuesday, December 15, 2009[/h]

 

[Good brother]

[h=1]Search at youtube main page for "An Intellectual Response to Freedom of Speech by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis"[/h]( i can't post links)

 

[Independent]

We can say all we want about the theoretical limits of free speech. The trouble is, in the case of this video, they wouldn't make any difference anyway. New technology has changed the debate. Everyone now carries a camera (ie a mobile phone. Cheap video production makes it possible for anyone to make a film. And above all the internet make it impossible to control information in the old ways.

Even the Chinese are struggling to control the internet (and the Chinese have no interest at all in defending free speech). The internet makes a fool of the old rules of libel and slander. If a picture is available on a dozen websites anyway, what difference does it make to stop a newspaper from printing it or a tv channel showing it? Very often it's impossible to track the source of the picture, or it may come from another jurisdiction that can't be controlled.

So, if you really want to curb free speech, you're also going to have to kill the internet. The same internet that contributed so much to the fall of dictators across the Arab world. At that price, is it worth it?

 

[Good brother]

The Institute of Race Relations has reprinted an interesting interview with A. Sivanandan conducted by the Norwegian Maoist daily Klassekampen.
In connection with the cartoons crisis, Sivanandan points out that "in our time – after Hitler and the Holocaust, in an era of ethnic cleansing and genocide and Islamophobia – the freedom to life comes before the freedom of speech. You cannot use freedom of speech to endanger other people's lives by incitement to racial, ethnic or religious hatred".

He also explains Islamophobia as the ideology of western imperialism: "Racial superiority is back on the agenda – in the guise this time not of a super-race but a super-civilisation on a mission to take the ideals of freedom and democracy, by force if necessary, to the benighted people of the Third World, especially to those who have got oil in their backyards. ( 'Post-modern imperialism' Robert Cooper, one-time adviser to Blair and the EU, calls it.) Conversely, western civilisation and its values should be jealously guarded against the pagan hordes now circulating in Europe's midst."

 

[Good brother]

Freedom and falsehoods
Despite recent injustices, Islam has always been a champion of free speech. So much injustice has been done to Islam over the issue of freedom of speech. Certain quarters choose to champion the cause of freedom of speech by indulging in acts whose primary objective is to tarnish the image of Islam through unfounded claims and to demonise it or demean the Prophet Muhammad.

Despite recent injustices, Islam has always been a champion of free speech.
So much injustice has been done to Islam over the issue of freedom of speech. Certain quarters choose to champion the cause of freedom of speech by indulging in acts whose primary objective is to tarnish the image of Islam through unfounded claims and to demonise it or demean the Prophet Muhammad through what they describe as literary or artistic works. Muslims have been put on the defensive time and again: from Salman Rushdie’s despicable novel through the ugly Danish cartoons all the way down to the irresponsible remarks by Pope Benedict XVI.
Muslims had every right to be offended because, as they saw it, these were not innocent exercises of freedom of speech but deliberate abuses that said nothing but untruths about Islam and its Prophet. The resort by some Muslims to violence, however, has damaged their cause even further. Islam has been the victim both of deliberate abuse and of irrational and ignorant responses to such abuse.
In fact, Islam - as shown clearly by its history - has always been involved in the struggle for freedom of choice and of speech.
For thirteen years since receiving the first Qur’anic revelation, in Mecca in 610 CE, the Prophet Muhammad responded to the "elders" who rejected his call to worship the One and Only God, Allah the Creator, by challenging them not to "obstruct the way" between him and the people.
"Let the people choose" was his slogan. Instead, the elders of the tribe of Quraysh, who feared the loss of their power and prestige, used every resource at their disposal in order to prevent any public discussion of what the Prophet had to say about the paganism the Arabs inherited from their forefathers. And it was not just paganism but a way of life littered with some of the most heinous atrocities committed against the weak and the vulnerable. Prophet Muhammad’s message was perceived as a revolution, a rebellion aimed at liberating minds and souls from human-imposed shackles and restrictions.
There is no better proof to the fact that Islam stands for freedom of thought and of _expression than the esteemed status "the seeking of knowledge" is assigned in both the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions. The first word of revelation was "iqra", meaning read or learn or recite. "Learn in the Name of your Lord who Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood; learn in the Name of your Lord, the Most Bountiful, Who taught (the use of) the pen and taught man that which he knew not."
Before Islam came to them, the Arabs prided themselves on being an illiterate community; very few of them learned anything apart from poetry and enough elementary astronomy to be able to cross the desert at night. Still, very few of them ever left Arabia or interacted with the bastions of civilisations to the north and the south. While the Arabs despised Jews and Christians, the Qur’an called them the People of the Book, and linked itself to their religious traditions.
Despite having been revealed first to the Arabs, the language of the Qur’an spoke in universal terms to the global human community. From day one, this was not meant to be a religious tradition for a particular racial or ethnic group, but rather one for the whole of mankind, claiming a direct link to all preceding divine missions from Noah through Abraham and Moses all the way down to Jesus.
As an eternal guarantee of the human freedom to choose, the Qur’an declared that "there is no compulsion in religion" and that no person’s conversion to Islam would be acceptable if not out of an absolute free will. Yet Islam spread out of Arabia in all four directions in record time, and the Ummah rapidly grew into a huge community.
There is no evidence whatsoever that conversion was coerced, although incentives might have been introduced by political regimes at times either in favour of conversion or in an attempt to discourage it. Rather, what attracted millions of people was the liberating message of the new religion, which declared that "an Arab is no better than a non-Arab, a white is no better than a black, and a yellow is no better than a red."
The two great empires of the day, that of Byzantium and that of Sassania, had been oppressive powers that suppressed and persecuted the nations that came under their influence. Wars of attritions between the two empires augmented the suffering of millions of people who were being turned into fuel for a conflict that raged for several decades. Not only did the rising Islamic power provide a better alternative but it also emancipated many nations that had been enslaved by the two decaying powers.
It did not take long for Islam to provide humanity with great centres of civilization where scholarship flourished like never before. Philosophers and scientists - Muslim, Jewish, Christian and Sabian alike - turned cities such as Baghdad, Cordova and Seville into minarets of enlightenment for the benefit of all humanity not only innovating but also building on the legacies of the Hellenistic and Persian civilizations. Without the contributions of such centres of learning, Europe would today still be in total darkness.
Today, most Muslims live in countries that are governed by despots who, like the elders of Quraysh, fear for their prestige and influence. In majority Muslim countries the police and intelligence services have no job other than muzzle people and make sure that nothing but what pleases the autocratic ruler is said or even whispered. It is not unusual for a person to lose his or her life for speaking out in public in contradiction to the wish of the despot. The largest number of prisoners in any given Muslim country happens to be prisoners of conscience. Few criminals or thieves are in prison because the real thieves are those in power.
In fact, much of the struggle that has been going on in Muslim countries from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans is about freedom. People are fighting for the freedom not only to say what they wish but even the freedom to dress the way they like. It is here that the roots of ’terrorism’ happen to be. The reason why some people resort to violence in Muslim countries is the lack of space for discussion about issues that matter and the brutality with which people who dare speak out are met.
Those of us Muslims who live in the liberal West appreciate more than anybody else the great bounty of being able to say what we like and to be able to lead the way of life we choose. It is because of this that many of us are gravely concerned that one of the repercussions of the US-led war on terrorism is that the liberal West is undermining one of its most treasured achievement. The defence of freedom of speech in the USA and Europe is becoming increasingly selective. This was supposed to be a political right to be employed by those who are governed against those who govern. Now, authorities in the alliance for war in Afghanistan and Iraq are heading in the direction of stifling the public so as not to question policy or criticize the perpetration of blunders. What is of greater concern is that leading authorities in the liberal west are the backers of some of the most autocratic regimes across the Muslim world.
Freedom of speech is not about the right to publish offensive cartoons or to claim about Islam what is false and unfair; it is to stand up to tyrants and oppressors and prevent them from doing in our name what we abhor and detest. What is frequently claimed to be freedom of speech today is nothing but abuse intended, at most, to settle scores or find fame - or perhaps infamy.
Dr Azzam Tamimi

 

[Good brother]

[h=1]Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech?[/h] mercredi, 15 avril 2009
Peter Singer



PRINCETON - Last month, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation. According to the text of the resolution, "Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity" that leads to "a restriction on the freedom of [religions'] adherents."
The resolution was originally proposed by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and was put to the Human Rights Council by Pakistan. It supports that it was aimed at such things as the derogatory cartoons of the prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper three years ago.

Germany opposed the resolution. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, a German spokesperson rejected the concept of "defamation of religion" as not valid in a human rights context, because human rights belonged to individuals, not to institutions or religions.


Many non-government organizations, both secular and religious, also opposed the resolution. Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, said that that body saw the resolution as weakening "the rights of individuals to express their views."


This seems like a sound argument. While attempts to stir up hatred against adherents of a religion, or to incite violence against them, may legitimately be suppressed, criticism of religion as such should not be.

The resolution is non-binding, but if nations were to enact laws putting it into effect, there can be no doubt that it would interfere with freedom of expression. For a start, what counts as "defamation of religion" is contested.

For example, the OIC said in its statement that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." Are those associations wrong? If the OIC wishes to change many people's perception that Islam violates human rights, suppressing freedom of speech is hardly the best way to go about it. The way to change such a perception would be to marshal evidence against it, and to make the case that human rights - including the rights of women - are as well protected in Islamic countries as they are in non-Islamic countries.

To demonstrate that it is wrong to associate Islam with terrorism, the OIC might begin to compile statistics on the religious affiliations of those who engage in terrorism. By contrast, suppressing the freedom of speech of Islam's critics merely gives rise to the suspicion that evidence and sound argument cannot show their arguments to be mistaken.

Coincidentally, in the same week that Germany and the World Jewish Congress rejected the idea that defamation of religion is an affront to human dignity, and upheld the right to freedom of expression, Germany's highest court issued its ruling on a case brought by a Jewish organization, and two Jewish individuals. The court ruled against the right of the United States-based animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to exhibit posters that juxtapose photographs of victims of the Holocaust with photographs of animals in factory farms and at slaughterhouses.

The posters bear the heading: "To Animals, All People are Nazis" - a line from the Polish-born Jewish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer. According to the court, Germany's laws on freedom of speech did not protect PETA's campaign, because to make "the fate of the victims of the Holocaust appear banal and trivial" was an offense against human dignity.

PETA was, of course, not arguing that Holocaust victims' fate was banal or trivial. On the contrary, it was using the Holocaust - which we would all agree was utterly horrific - to suggest, as Isaac Bashevis Singer did, that there are parallels between the way the Nazis treated Jews and the way we treat animals. The conclusion PETA wants us to reach is that both the Holocaust and the mass confinement and slaughter of animals are horrific. A free society should be open to discussing such a claim.

Irrespective of the merits of PETA's campaign, however, those who stood up for free speech at the UN Human Rights Council should be able to see that the fact that some forms of speech cause offense is not sufficient reason to censor them. If PETA is not allowed to state its case against our abuse of animals in the way that they judge best, because doing so might offend some people, then criticism of religion could also be prohibited on the same grounds.

If, on the other hand, a religion's adherents have no right to protection against criticism of their religion, then, even in Germany, Holocaust victims and their descendants (I am one) should not be protected against advertising campaigns that, though not intended to incite hatred or violence, may cause them offense.

Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University.

 

[glo]

Good brother, you have been talking to yourself for an hour now. Now that's what I call Freedom of Speech! ;D

 

[Good brother]

All week Muslims were asked why are we so offended by the movies, cartoons and books which makes a mockery of our deen. "why don't you just rise above it?" well it seems freedom of speech/expression is very selective according to the British media and government. why is this advert deemed to be religiously sensitive? the British government along with the so called civilized societies like America and European countries are able to make such decisions from a political platform which is protected by their capitalistic ideology. Muslims can only resolve this and deter other nations from such provocative behavior, only on a state level as was the case in our history when we lived under the shade of the khilafah state. please share your thoughts with us!


Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'

An ice cream company banned from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun has vowed to position similar posters in London in time for the Pope's visit.
Antonio Federici's advert showed a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line "immaculately conceived".
The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered it to be discontinued, saying it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs.
Antonio Federici says it will now put up new posters near Westminster Abbey.
Pope Benedict XVI will visit Westminster Abbey on Friday, before holding Mass at Westminster Cathedral on Saturday.
Antonio Federici, a UK-based company, has yet to reveal what image will be portrayed in the new advert, saying only that it would be "a continuation of the theme".
A spokeswoman for the company said the new image intended to "defy" the ban from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
She added: "We are in the process of securing a series of billboards close to and along the planned route of the Pope's cavalcade around Westminster Cathedral".
A spokesman for the ASA said its rulings "must be followed and we are taking steps to ensure Antonio Federici do so".
He added: "We do not comment on the likely compliance of ads that have not yet appeared.
"However, we are continuing to conduct work behind the scenes, including with the advertiser, to ensure they comply with the rules."
Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

To use such an image in a lighthearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith”
​

Advertising Standards Authority
Defending the banned nun advert, Antonio Federici said the idea of "conception" represented the development of their ice cream.
It added that the use of religious imagery represented its strong feeling towards its product.
The firm said it also wished to "comment on and question, using satire and gentle humour, the relevance and hypocrisy of religion and the attitudes of the church to social issues".
The banned advert was featured in editions of The Lady and Grazia magazines.
The ASA said in its ruling: "We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.
"We concluded that to use such an image in a lighthearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith."
The publishers of The Lady said it had received eight complaints and that it had been a "misjudgement" to have published .
Grazia said it considered that the advert was lighthearted and did not mock any religious groups.
The ASA banned another advert for Antonio Federici in July 2009 that showed a priest and a nun appearing as if they were about to kiss.

BBC 15 sept. 2010

 

[Independent]

it seems freedom of speech/expression is very selective according to the British media and government.

The banning of the this angel campaign is a little surprising - not least because they're hopelessly late. The campaign has been running for some time and must have been approaching the end of its natural life. The advertiser (Lynx male deoderant) is well known for risqué themes, usually of a sexual nature rather than a religious one. Sometimes advertisers do want to be controversial and even deliberately get banned - in this case, I think the team simply thought it was a good idea.

However, you would be quite wrong to say that Christianity gets unfairly protected. For instance, earlier this year a UK Christian ad was removed because it claimed healing powers simply for having Christian faith.

Also, there's barely a month that goes by without an ad that uses Christian imagery somewhere. Most popular subjects are monks and nuns, usually treated humorously.

On the other hand, I can't think of a single UK ad that used Muslim imagery for humorous purposes or indeed any other purpose. So if the question is, which religion is getting treated with least respect by UK advertising, then the answer is Christianity, by an enormous distance.

 

[~Zaria~]

Oops.....wrong thread (please delete)

​

 

[Ramadhan]

Also, there's barely a month that goes by without an ad that uses Christian imagery somewhere. Most popular subjects are monks and nuns, usually treated humorously.

On the other hand, I can't think of a single UK ad that used Muslim imagery for humorous purposes or indeed any other purpose. So if the question is, which religion is getting treated with least respect by UK advertising, then the answer is Christianity, by an enormous distance.

I totally agree with you.

This reinforces the point I made in a different thread in this World Affairs section: Just because you ignore the insults that others make against your religion, does not mean it will go away.
In fact, your religion/faith/belief will become the butts of the jokes again and again.

 

[Independent]

I totally agree with you.

This reinforces the point I made in a different thread in this World Affairs section: Just because you ignore the insults that others make against your religion, does not mean it will go away.
In fact, your religion/faith/belief will become the butts of the jokes again and again

You have a fair point here. There has indeed been a slow erosion of respect for Christian sentiments in the UK over a period of many decades. Could that have been prevented by stricter censorship rules, or would it have happened anyway because society has become more secular? Hard to say. You can only see the history that actually happened, not the 'might have been'.

It has led to a strange situation in the UK where the mainstream religion (Christianity) gets the roughest treatment, while minority religions (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc) are treated more sensitively. Part of the reason for this is that Christianity is regarded as part of the 'establishment' and therefore something that needs to be rebelled against. It's also seen as an institution strong enough to take the knocks.

It's the reverse situation from many other countries, such as Egypt, where the mainstream religion is the one that gets the protection from this kind of social give-and-take.

 

[Ramadhan]

It's the reverse situation from many other countries, such as Egypt, where the mainstream religion is the one that gets the protection from this kind of social give-and-take.

Do you live in egypt?

I cannot speak for egypt, but in Indonesia (where I live), the largest muslim country on earth, christians/catholics/buddhists/hindus also enjoy equal protection as muslims and we can't insult other religions in public spheres.
In fact, there was a restaurant in Jakarta opened 3-4 years ago called Buddha Bar (yes, a franchise from the famous one in Paris) whose owners were two muslims, daughters from previous Jakarta's governor and Indonesian president. The restaurant also had a huge budhha statue in its premise.
This caused upsets among buddhists community and they protested. Finally the restaurant had to remove the statue and change its name.