|
LadyEllen -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 5:44:31 AM)
|
Wow - cant we have a debate, without getting personal? I realise its about freedom of expression, but the object of the debate is being lost through the exercise of the freedom to personalise objections to what someone said, rather than arguing the point? (ie, calling someone an ass, rather than their point!).
In reality there is no freedom of expression - we are all bound to keep our views under control through fear - whether that is fear of being ejected from our relationship, family, work, social group or fear of being subject to reprisal - down the pub, in the street etc. Unless one is either strong enough physically, socially, financially and emotionally to withstand the possible consequences of speaking one's mind, or one is sufficiently psychotic to have no grasp on such possible consequences, one always tempers one's expressions to the time, place and company in which one find her/himself. In the ideal world we could all exercise a right to free expression without such fears, but regardless of what the law is, we are all human so we keep ourselves under control.
For example, where I live I am surrounded by fit, active people of my age who have never had a job, and never had any intention of getting a job. They claim social benefits, are provided with housing and some even run a car. Over the last twenty years, whilst I have been working like crazy to provide for me and my family, I have also had to pay taxes to provide for these work-shy types and their burgeoning families. I see them pass my window every morning, with a case of beer and a cigarette on the go, whilst I have to scrimp and save. My view on these people is that they are scroungers - but could I say that to their faces? Of course not - I'd likely as not be beaten to a pulp, regardless of my right to say it and the truth of the description. (NB I refer to fit, active people here - not the sick and disabled for whom double could be given in social benefit were the work-shy be forced to work!).
Slander and libel laws exist of course too, to protect us from false accusation and description. I dont know what its like in the rest of the world, but certainly in the UK it costs a great deal of money to sue someone for either. Every weekend the Sunday tabloid "newspapers" destroy ordinary lives with ridiculous reports - "Gay Nazi Vicar Denies Satanic Sex Abuse" - that kind of thing, to sell their wares. Lives are destroyed by them but the ordinary people concerned can do nothing about the falsity of such claims because it would require more money than they could possibly ever earn to pay for legal action for libel - only the rich and famous can protect themselves. In ordinary life meanwhile, for ordinary people, only the might of their arm provides protection.
Yes, we should have freedom of expression, but that is not to say we should always use it. We have to decide in each circumstance whether it is expedient to use it. We need to consider in each circumstance what the effects might be on us and the group to which we belong. We should check very carefully the veracity of what we will say or do. We should examine closely whether such expression will achieve some desired result. We should look carefully at what effects our expression will have on others.
The publication of those cartoons failed to pass these tests. It was not expedient, it could be counted on that there would be negative consequences on the west, (although they had initially been published six months earlier without such), it was not accurate (in that it equated Islam as a whole with terrorism), it achieved no desired result unless what was desired was to deliberately cause offence, it only added to the anger of Muslims in general towards the west. There was and is a right to publish and say what one wants, but one has to be responsible about it.
As for the nazis and anti-Semitism, firstly can we all agree a convention never to capitalise "nazi" please? The nature of that perverted philosophy does not warrant such respect. (NB I capitalised above as a headline quote!)
Anti-Semitism, or more accurately anti-Judaism, began centuries before Hitler. It was prevalent, to greater or less degrees throughout Europe, including Britain and Germany, as a function of Roman Catholicism and thence those forms of churchianity which replaced it in Protestant regions. The basic premise is that Judas (a Jew) betrayed Jesus, and then the Jews of Jerusalem opted to have him executed when they had the choice of having him released. The blood of the saviour is therefore on the hands of the Jews and they are to be accursed for it, as one of the gospels tells us. That the mission of Jesus could not have been achieved without his death, that it was the Romans who actually did the deed, that the whole plan was executed according to the will of God, does not come into it of course LOL! Thus it became the religious duty of christians to follow up on the accursing by treating the Jews with disdain as a minimum, ranging up to genocide perhaps as a maximum. Hitler was not the first to do this - check out English history for some examples.
In Germany, many Jews considered themselves German and were indeed integrated into much of life. They had fought with bravery for Germany in the first world war. However, the undercurrent of hate for the Jews was there nonetheless and required only the circumstances of the inter war years and the easy answers of a man like Hitler to be kindled into something more. The same undercurrent existed in Britain at the same time after all - even Jews from Germany fleeing the abuse there, were faced with governmental and social prejudice.
That such an undercurrent has mainly now disappeared in Britain, (apart from amongst the far right nazi wannabes), along with majority Christianity, is a welcome development. I wonder whether such an undercurrent survives in the US, where church attendance is still high? Not to accuse, just interested!
regards
E
|
|
|
|
