open Democracy News Analysis - Freedom of Speech in Europe, - Comments

desimol on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

desimol — Thu, 31 May 2007 17:12:28 +0100

Our Great Foreign Secretary has a new website www.margaretbeckett.co.uk

David Thompson on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

David Thompson — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:03:17 +0000

Speaking of theme music and incitement to violence, we could incorporate both and use the theme from Joe 90. The series was from a more innocent age, when the free world's security services employed nine-year-old boys and subjected their unsuspecting brains to psychedelic experiments in order to get them to steal Soviet aircraft or bomb some secret facility. It was all very cheesy and involved some questionable parenting, but Joe did have a pretty fabulous car.

Matt Murrell on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

Matt Murrell — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:40:48 +0000

I've never been entirely sure where I stand on the illegality of incitement to violence. I'm opposed to violence, obviously, but, given that parents repeatedly try to drum into their children the fact that you don't have to do something just because someone told you to, it's curious that it's a crime for adults.

David Thompson on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

David Thompson — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 08:23:54 +0000

Candace, One would have to pursue a fairly tendentious line to characterise the MoToons illustrators, or anyone here, as "stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists"; likewise, the notion that they somehow encouraged the idea that jihadists are "speaking for all Muslims". The ASIL quote is, I think, beside the point, since no-one here has advocated "racial superiority" or "racial hatred" or "incitement to violence" - all of which are covered by existing law. And the fact remains that, in the free-thinking world at least, the "rights of others" do not include religious ideology being exempt from criticism and ridicule, not least when those beliefs have an overtly political aspect. And, as yet, we haven't heard a convincing moral premise for the creation of any such legal edifice. "Now we need a theme song here, incense would be nice too." Erm, I'm not sure how I can introduce fragrance to this thread [ insert gag of choice here ], but I may be able to rustle up a song of sorts. I still like a foul-mouthed polka, which always starts the day off nicely. Or maybe you prefer something more in keeping with the season of goodwill.

jayfromtexas on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

jayfromtexas — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:50:21 +0000

Candace, Nice work. When I first met you, you didn't say much. Back then, you only wanted to read what others had to say. But I have noticed that for the past few months, you are the one that brings the most relevant and edifying information to the larger discussion. I am impressed by both the speed at which you learn and your growing self-confidence in your ability for political discussion. I particularly like the Slate article reposted here, which does a marvelous job of bridging the arguments that David and I have been making, even though it is more of a book review. The outtakes from the American Society of International Law is exactly the sort of "help" that I had been soliciting on this idea of mine. I didn't know if there were a legal precedent for what I was thinking, and wouldn't have known where to begin looking. Again, good job.

Candace on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

Candace — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:56:11 +0000

I don't recall reading on this thread of how the cartoons encouraged a stereotype of all Muslims being terrorists by depicting their prophet as one, although that's precisely what the posts supporting the UN idea came down to - arguing against stereotyping Muslims with articles and arguments that encourage that exact unwise and unhealthy perception, although I don't believe that was the intention for posting them. I think David is just addressing local issues which is also relevant, but internationally speaking, when the policy of the war on terror is basically to kill militant Islamists we should be careful encouraging paranoia that the jihadists/ militant Islamists are speaking for all Muslims. The Danish Cartoon Row and the International Regulation of Expression [To characterize the Jyllands-Posten cartoon row merely as a dispute over freedom of expression may oversimplify the underlying legal questions. Although freedom of expression is a fundamental norm of international human rights law, it is subject to certain restrictions. All of the major human rights treaties that codify this right also subject it to limitations, which allow ? and in some instances require ? restriction of the right on certain specified grounds including protection of the rights of others. International human rights law recognizes that there is a spectrum of expression, ranging from that which must be protected to that which must be punished. For example, two widely ratified human rights treaties ? the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) ? require States Parties to prohibit certain hostile expressions. Thus, the ICCPR, in Article 20(2), requires States Parties to prohibit ?[a]ny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.?[1] CERD provides that States Parties are obliged to criminalize ?dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin,? as well as participation in ?propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination.? Denmark is a party to the ICCPR and CERD.] [Protesters are also protected by the freedom of expression. Political speech receives particularly strong protection under human rights law, providing a broad spectrum for discussion in which the state may not interfere. However, when protest slogans and placards incite to violence, this protection is eroded. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that High Contracting Parties have broad latitude in responding to incitements to violence. Although the European Court of Human Rights does not exercise jurisdiction over States that are not members of the Council of Europe, its jurisprudence is instructive regarding the recognized scope of freedom of expression generally.....In particular, where the expression contains a clear call for the use of violence, States Parties to the European Convention may resort to criminal prosecutions to repress it] On a lighter note, I read the first few pages of this thread yesterday. (my account is set to 50 posts per page) My what a lively thread it was back in its youth; full of pep, full of zing. I love the addition of the chintz David, Now we need a theme song here , incense would be nice too, I prefer vanilla spice, thank-you. Message was edited by: Candace

David Thompson on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

David Thompson — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:38:04 +0000

In other news... Ophelia at B&W clarifies the 'war against Islam' shtick: "It seems to me the battle is between the idea that religion should be immune from criticism and the idea that it should not be. Or, perhaps, it's between the idea that 'sensitivities' and feelings of being 'offended' should receive great deference and the idea that grownups are supposed to have learned how to take being 'offended' in their stride and move on. Or it's between the idea that 'the sacred' should be inviolate and the idea that it should be subject to scrutiny. Or it's between the idea that 'blasphemy' is strictly forbidden and the idea that 'blasphemy' is a meaningless word referring to an empty category and should be drummed out of our vocabulary, let alone our laws." Ideas of 'blasphemy' only have meaning if you believe in God and His alleged representatives on Earth. For believers to expect non-believers to comply with notions of 'the sacred' is to deny us the right to publicly state the perfectly legitimate view that Mohammed was not on the cosmic hotline to some hypothetical deity and that those who believe he was are mistaken and rather gullible. And by the same token I don't believe Jesus "is the way" or that God pays particular attention to Jewish people - any more than I believe L. Ron Hubbard was anything more than a crap science fiction writer with a yacht and a taste for young boys. Blasphemy and related taboos are about more than the pious not wanting to see or hear things that challenge their beliefs. It's also about presuming to tell you and me what we may see or hear and, by extension, how we're 'allowed' to think about certain things. Those who protest most loudly are simply trying to control the terms on which we may consider their claims of privileged insight and status. Viewed in this light, there's some obvious common ground between the most savage and primitive Islamists and the PC "progressives" who imagine no-one and nothing should ever be called 'savage' or 'primitive', even when it is.

henry_hart_1 on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

henry_hart_1 — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:37:02 +0000

All right, all right ... mea culpa. It's just ... I've always hunted trolls. Some habits are hard to break! HH

Matt Murrell on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:01:06 +0000

You can never go wrong with trinkets.

David Thompson on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

David Thompson — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:58:40 +0000

My Great and Terrible Plan will be revealed at a later date, by which time resistance will be futile. In the meantime, I was thinking we should tart the place up with a few nick-nacks. Y'know, ornamental trinket boxes and tiny porcelain fancies. Candace will love it. She's big on chintz.

Matt Murrell on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:54:59 +0000

David, Are you trying to plant seeds of doubt? Showing me in a bad light? Generally trying to disrupt, anger and cause unrest?

David Thompson on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

David Thompson — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:38:50 +0000

[ Sounds of tutting as David eyes new monstrosity on wall ] "Divide and conquer tatics [sic], create class envy." Crikey. Did you find that thing at some Marxist newsgroup car boot sale?

Matt Murrell on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:23:42 +0000

I see that MF people are about. [Sound of further tapping, and swearing at stupid hammer, as Matt puts up a (in his opinion) better sign.]

David Thompson on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

David Thompson — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:43:21 +0000

[ Sounds of tapping as David nails big sign to wall ]

henry_hart_1 on "Freedom of Speech in Europe"

henry_hart_1 — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:18:28 +0000

Since I'm only one person, I myself cannot be "many fine," but thank you. Perhaps you recognize my many fine qualities.

Freedom of Speech in Europe,

jayfromtexas — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:52:18 +0000

Europe has made a grave mistake. The publication of the cartoons depicting and defaming Muhammed in a Danish newspaper had a dubious motivation at best, but the republication of those cartoons in newspapers across Europe despite ongoing Muslim protests against any such action has lead to scores of protests, riots, and deaths. The fact that Europe is unwilling to acknowledge any mistake, and is instead attempting to deflect from the true nature of the crisis by insisting that it is a matter of protecting Free Speech, is surely sowing the seeds of more future conflict. Some in this forum have insisted that Islam is to blame, that the prophet Muhammed was actually a man of questionable character and unworthy of a following, that the religion is fundamentally flawed, predatory, and encourages violence. Others have insisted that this is actually a battle in the struggle with European Muslims, that Muslims insist that their customs and taboos be adopted by their host society, that Muslims are guilty of bullying and must be stood down. Others have insisted that this is a battlefield for Liberal society, that Free Speech must be completely free, and that secularism must prevail over religious values. Read the rest of this post...