Freedom of Speech, revisited
I read a post not so long ago on a French blog, here, about the position of the EU on the subject of freedom of speech. I fully agree with what it says, and since it is in French, I decided to give you a translation so that everyone can understand :)
"The 25 EU member states took their time before reaching an official and common position on the caricatures and the violence they started in the Muslim world. This is now done: the foreign affairs ministers passed a resolution «on the reactions in the Muslimm world about the caricatures published in the European medias». So we can believe that every word has been carefully thought through. Well, the result worrisome: free speech is indeed confirmed as an «essential element of the democratic debate», but at the condition that it respects «the beliefs and convictions (religious or others) of others». And so that everybody gets it properly, they added: «the Council understands that the caricatures hurt and shocked Muslims all over the world, and regrets it». Yes you read correclty, regrets it.
To put it otherwise, as the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers believes that when anyone express himself, he must pay attention to the feelings and values of others and not only follow the laws of the States where this freedom of speech is applicable. In a world where information and the Internet are everywhere, this restriction is not to be taken lightly. Because we don't express ourselves in a given place anymore but in a global world from which it is not possible to escape. And this could go very far. When are we going to see protests in the Muslim world against posters made in the western world, shown in the western world and showing people lightly dressed or... withMuslime muslim scarf?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean anything if it is not absolute. Intolerance is spreading, even in European heads."
Posted in: _Democracy
"The 25 EU member states took their time before reaching an official and common position on the caricatures and the violence they started in the Muslim world. This is now done: the foreign affairs ministers passed a resolution «on the reactions in the Muslimm world about the caricatures published in the European medias». So we can believe that every word has been carefully thought through. Well, the result worrisome: free speech is indeed confirmed as an «essential element of the democratic debate», but at the condition that it respects «the beliefs and convictions (religious or others) of others». And so that everybody gets it properly, they added: «the Council understands that the caricatures hurt and shocked Muslims all over the world, and regrets it». Yes you read correclty, regrets it.
To put it otherwise, as the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers believes that when anyone express himself, he must pay attention to the feelings and values of others and not only follow the laws of the States where this freedom of speech is applicable. In a world where information and the Internet are everywhere, this restriction is not to be taken lightly. Because we don't express ourselves in a given place anymore but in a global world from which it is not possible to escape. And this could go very far. When are we going to see protests in the Muslim world against posters made in the western world, shown in the western world and showing people lightly dressed or... withMuslime muslim scarf?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean anything if it is not absolute. Intolerance is spreading, even in European heads."
Posted in: _Democracy
Labels: Democracy
posted by Bambitroll at
19:39
1 Comments:
your whole argument is contains in the following part of your message:
"the Council understands that the caricatures hurt and shocked Muslims all over the world, and regrets it"
you interprets that 'the concil regrets the caricatures[it]' but not that their sentence can very well be interpreted in a different manner.
1. the compasionnate version:
'it' means 'the pain mulsims suffer due to the caricature'. it is very compasionnate, similar to codolence type of thing.
2. the aggressive version:
'it' means the concil regrets that 'mulsims are shocked', as if 'they should not be shocked'
So other interpretations of this 'it' are possible. Obviously your interpretation could very well be the correct one :) i just wanted to show that your analysis was iconclusive.
ps: the gui to enter comment to this blog is poor at best :(
By
Anonymous, at 28/3/06 01:57
Post a Comment
<< Home