Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
I mentioned a few days ago that among the countries today, I'd rate Australia as relatively more (if not the most) free. I don't comment much on Australian policies, but you are perhaps aware of my concern with the recent muzzling of free speech.
Janet Albrechtsen has raised some good points today in The Australian in this context. I'm extracting a few of them, below:
EXTRACTS
There ought to be outrage that feeling insulted, offended, humiliated or intimidated can censor free speech. Instead of pointing out that these hopelessly subjective tests have no rightful place in the law, Marr opted for cute distinctions between feeling offended or insulted and feeling humiliated or intimidated.Teasingly, he wrote last week that the anti-vilification provisions of the RDA were drafted too broadly: "Vigorous public discussion in a free society is impossible without causing insult and offence." He's right. But then he said speech that made someone feel humiliated or intimidated should be censored. "There are limits," he concluded.Yes, there are limits to free speech. If errors of fact are made, that is a legitimate complaint and corrections should be duly published. If defamation has occurred, that too is a valid claim and redress is available. But none of that justifies using highly subjective laws as political weapons to shut down views you detest. And quibbling over which feelings the law ought to cover is not a genuine defence of free speech. Hurt feelings ought to have no role in censoring free speech.Laws often involve ambiguous language and require subjective reasoning from judges. But the more ambiguous and subjective we make the laws, the more we are subjected to the rule of judges, not law.There ought to be outrage that a judge decided to play editor and ruled against Bolt for not being sufficiently polite. Judge Mordecai Bromberg entered Big Brother territory when he picked apart Bolt's articles on the basis that his language was "often strong and emphatic' that there is "a liberal use of mockery and sarcasm" and a "derisive tone".Sure, debate is sometimes heated. But, then again, the right to free speech is not some nanny-state edict that grants a right to express only genteel speech.Most people on the conservative side of politics may believe those on the Left are wrong on the important issues but fully support their right to express their views. The attitude is "go ahead, do your best at explaining your position and just watch us counter it with better arguments".
I seem to have wasted my time in dissecting the arguments of those Indians in Australia who wanted to impose a ban on this play.
The administrators of the Facebook group on this subject created by these fanatic Indian Australians booted me out from the group, but have also possibly shut it down (I can't find the group on Facebook, nor through google). So much for their alleged commitment to free speech. What a shame!
I'm writing this merely to note that this play has now won The Age Critics Award for best new work. Clearly it must have had some artistic merit.
The fact that this play won a significant award makes it even more important that ABSOLUTE freedom be allowed in matters of speech/expression. Let people judge whether the expression is good or bad. Let's not pre-judge and try to stop any expression.
Should any fanatic Australian Indian happen to read this, please consider this simple truism: human civilisation depends ENTIRELY on allowing the free expression of the human mind.
Let there be liberty of thought and expression. As the great Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore wrote:
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
This is going to be a long post. It deals with over 10 pages of comments made on the Facebook group "Say No to "GANESH VERSUS THE THIRD REICH".
I was invited to the group by Dr Yadu Singh, President of the Council of Indian Australians Inc. Then, last week I was ejected, despite having made no comment that could have been construed as being offensive. I did have a few questions, but definitely no offence was caused.
The actions of at least some members on this FB group are therefore lamentable. I had expected educated Indians in Australia to have the calibre to discuss issues in a mature and logical manner.
SI even said on the FB group that: “the tradition of debate and skepticism is inherent in the Hindu tradition and has always been encouraged.” Unfortunately that was clearly not evident either in the discussion or my subsequent ejection from the group.
Anyway, let me finish the task I had committed to finishing. (I’ll briefly mention the medical issue at the very end, and request that Dr Yadu Singh read that bit). I’ll sub-divide this response into a number of sub-topics, based on the comments made on the FB group.
Ban and government involvement was the key issue, not the protest
I noted a few days ago that the group had changed its position from a demand that the play be banned to expressing its opinions. That is well within the right of any individual – to protest things he doesn’t like. I’m glad that the group toned down its original insistence for a ban.
Yadu Singh wrote: “According to you, they have an ABSOLUTE freedom of speech which entitles them to denigrate our beliefs, deities or religion, but we are not entitled to express our disapproval and disgust by the same logic of yours. Bizarre!”
Indeed, I FULLY support Yadu Singh’s right to express his disapproval and disgust. This matter could have been escalated in the press, including Indian press. It could have been expressed in articles, etc. What I am (and have) objected to is the idea of using the government’s coercive power to ban the play or to in any other way get involved.
However, I notice that the government was involved in “resolving” this matter. This was unfortunate. This is not a matter for government but for the free market of ideas, to resolve. It is essentially a private matter between individuals (including groups).
Using the government (an entity with coercive power) to influence things that hurt our sentiments takes us down a slippery slope. The government is our agent, whose job is to protect our liberty, not our beliefs. Our beliefs could be right or wrong. They should be the subject of public discussion, not protection by government.
But back to the key concern I had, about the proposal for a ban on the play. That is what provoked my comments about Hindu fanaticism. Just writing against the play or even holding a dharna or boycott of the play would not have been sufficient to use such a word. By all means protest. But do NOT involve force. Involving the government means involving the use of force.
In a free society, no expression can be banned, although it can be regulated (e.g. certain types of TV programmes can only be allowed to air at late night. Even Mein Kampf cannot be banned (and indeed, is not banned in India – it is on India’s bestseller list), although its writer would have been liable to be hauled up under the law for threatening the Jews with violence.
In USA, government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had publicly threatened violence against political officials in a speech. The US Supreme Court ruled that “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” — such as inciting a mob to burn down a house or hiring a hit man — “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force.”
In India, in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar 1962, the Supreme Court said that "[C]riticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order."
Why is such freedom of expression so important? As I pointed out (quoting from Danford) here, “The expression of mere opinions can harm no one. The suppression of any point of view is unjustifiable because to suppress an opinion is to claim a monopoly on truth, which no one possesses. The power to control the expression of opinion, then, is illegitimate. As Mill said: ‘The best government has no more title to it than the worst. lt is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.’”
In the USA a senator, a war veteran who fought to protect the USA flag in war, strongly opposed a constitutional amendment to criminalise flag burning in USA. He said that flag burning ‘is obscene, painful and unpatriotic’, … ‘[b]ut I believe Americans gave their lives in the many wars to make certain that all Americans have a right to express themselves – even those who harbor hateful thoughts.’ Till today, you can burn the US flag in USA and it will not be treated as an offence. Flag burning is an abhorrent action that must be allowed by the free society, even though it should be roundly condemned.
Such are the standards of liberty. Let fools say what they will. It is only when they threaten or incite violence that they should be brought to book.
Even racist expression should be publicly allowed, except where it seeks to cause violence. Banning bad ideas drives them underground and leads to subtle forms of discrimination. Best to have bad ideas publicly known so they can be debated and vigorously opposed.
I don’t agree entirely with what Spencer Zifack wrote in The Australia a few days ago, but I would urge the Indians in Australia to at least imbibe the following sentiment:
“in a free and democratic society we ought to be able to accommodate speech that offends and insults, even on racial and religious grounds. We may disagree with and be concerned by such speech but the solution is to combat it in the marketplace of ideas rather than prohibit it. However, the situation is different with respect to speech that humiliates and/or intimidates. Even more so with speech that vilifies or incites hatred. Here, the measure of the hurt, the gravity of the discrimination and potential social disruption are plainly sufficient reasons to justify a legal limitation.” [What's reasonable is a dubious matter for law by Spencer Zifcak, The Australian October 14, 2011]
No “rights” to protection of beliefs
Yadu Singh wrote: “we are rational people, who do not denigrate or abuse any one’s beliefs, deities, or religions, but also do not want others to do the same for ours. Is it not FAIR, Sanjeev?”
Yes, indeed it is not fair for others to “denigrate” or “abuse” your beliefs. But that doesn’t mean it is a violation of their (or your) liberty.
Similarly, AKA wrote, “living in a free, democratic and multicultural society also comes with the responsibility of respect & sensitivity which is a very different issue to freedom of speech.”
Yes, there is a responsibility of respect and sensitivity. No doubt about it. But there is no OBLIGATION for respect and sensitivity. No one is obliged to hold your beliefs on a high pedestal and be sensitive about it.
AKA later wrote, “It is only common courtesy that when involving such an entity, ALL possible measures must take place to ensure no offense is done.”
That is wrong, AKA. There is NO measure that a government can take to “ensure that no offense is done”. That would be the use of force to protect people’s beliefs. NO such protection is permitted under the law, nor should it ever be permitted.
Later, NR wrote: “We're not protecting God here, we're protecting our beliefs, and the right not to have them hurt, or ridiculed.”
I appreciate your concern, NR, but no, there is NO right to not have your beliefs hurt or ridiculed.
If any belief was protected then we would never find the truth, since we’d have to check whether anyone’s beliefs were hurt. No science could be conducted if Darwin had to ask permission from the Church before publishing his studies that demolish the cosmology of the Church. No one could publish a study that the earth was round since the beliefs of those who believe in a flat earth would be injured. And so on.
Beliefs are NOT truths. And even the “truth” is not protected. It can (and must) be challenged. So it may not be “fair” to have others “denigrate” one’s beliefs, but in the free society such denigration is FULLY protected.
Subset: Multiculturalism
AKA wrote: "However, when it is reference to a God whom people revere so devotionally, one must be sensitive. This is the sign of respect, this is the sign of multiculturalism, this is a reflection of a civil and moral society."
I'm afraid this is an expectation but NOT an obligation. I may prefer to be sensitive to religions (although I disbelieve all of them) but I have no obligation to do so. Multiculturalism does NOT override the concept of liberty. Multiculturalism is not license to destroy liberty.
Sure, all cultures must learn to respect each other. But if they do not respect each other, then the government has no business to intervene – unless there is significant and measurable harm (violence) caused.
No obligation to be consulted prior to the writing or publication of anything.
AKA complained that “the appropriate bodies/community leaders were not consulted beforehand as in this case.” His idea is that a few parts of the play should be omitted since they cause offence, and why did these writers not consult with “Hindu” organisations first?
Well, much as I think that this should have occurred, let me assure AKA that there is NO OBLIGATION for anyone to consult the “group” whose beliefs may be offended as a result of a certain expression. Indeed, there is no obligation to consult even after the expression has been made.
What you are asking if for pre-screening of ALL writing by affected stakeholders. This would constitute a total violation of the concept of liberty.
The harm principle
Here’s what NR said on the FB group: “If you want to argue about Ganesh Versus the Third Reich, then take into consideration the principle of harm, which is a recognised limitation to Freedom of Speech. Just as you’re claiming that anything and everything should be said under freedom of speech without constraints, we’re exercising our right under the principle of harm, which is built into the principle of Freedom of Speech.”
In DOF I have explained the harm principle at length. We ought to be very cautious of fictitious harm, or imaginary harm. Physical harm is self-evident, but mental harm can be very difficult to prove. To the extent evidence can be adduced, there is cause for compensation through civil courts.
Dr Yadu Singh raised the issue of bullying. He said, “Violence can be physical or verbal. Physical or psychological injury both are bad and affect people for a long time. Bullying is nothing but psychological violence, which is a criminal offence.” I have no doubt that it is, but the standard of proof for bullying is far higher than commonly understood. I worked in WorkSafe Victoria and was actively involved in implementation of the relevant guidance, so let it be known that I do not condone bullying. It is indeed a criminal offence. But it is fundamentally related to direct intent to harm. In the case of a play which is not intended to ‘bully’ any single individual, nor is it repeated (since you may choose not to attend the play at all), the concept of bullying does not apply.
AKA wrote, “But freedom of speech does not imply acceptance of intentional sentimental injury.” I’m not sure what is a “sentimental injury”, but by intentional sentimental injury AKA is talking about something like DIRECT, intentional bullying of AKA, then I agree there might be something in the play.
However, there was NO intent in the play to directly attack AKA’s sentiments. This plea is spurious.
So we are back to the rather questionable argument about harm to one’s sentiments. Such harm is NOT sufficient to motivate a ban. Should Australian Hindus have not been able to sleep for one night after watching the play they could seek compensation of equivalent nature from the civil courts. Feeling hurt does not entitle them to ban the play. Anything that does not directly involve harm must be dealt with through civil action, not by involving the government.
But even that is questionable. As Bhagwad pinpointed the matter: “If the offending speech etc were on public loudspeakers where you have no choice but to hear it then that might be a problem. But you PAY to go see a play! It’s not accidental. You PAY to read a book. You CHOOSE to go listen to a speaker. And so you cannot claim to be a victim when you freely walked into a private area where you may hear things you don’t like.”
In other words, if, knowing the topic of the play, you CHOOSE to watch it, then please don’t complain about harm! This is fictitious harm. There was also a claim made that the majority of certain group of people (on the group?) were offended by the play. Sure, but a collective can never be harmed. It is only individuals that can harmed and if they are harmed they can separately sue for harm (although, they might consider class action).
Subset
NB asked, “explain why there are laws against slander, defamation and libel?”
It should be obvious by now that each of these involves INTENT and MEASURABLE harm. And one’s reputation is NOT one’s belief. Need I say more?
Use of humour and satire to denigrate
SI asked, “And for the perpetrator humor is a convenient defence for degrading another…”
Indeed, humour and satire was invented precisely to avoid direct criticism during the times when one could be burnt on the stake for speaking the truth. In DOF I have discussed this at length. In particular, Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) made a significant contribution through Gulliver’s Travels, a book in which he put fighting words into the mouth of (the fictional) King of Brobdingnag. Readers could relate this to their own life, and think about its implications for their own reality. Voltaire (1694-1778)’s Candide was another masterpiece in this genre. Later, political cartoons and lampoons came in.
Indians who live in Australia will no doubt have noticed the extreme bluntness of political cartoons in Australia. Yes, it is a convenient way to “denigrate” another. And it is protected by law. Unless the Ganesha play asks its viewers to go and attack Hindus, or to burn and destroy temples, its message is protected.
Let Gods fight their own battles
When people complained to him about matters similar to what some Hindus in Australia were complaining about, Emperor Tiberius said, ‘if the gods think that they have just claims for grievance, they can surely take care of themselves’’. Indeed, why now let Lord Ganesha fix the problem himself? Why involve us feeble ordinary mortals in their great battles?
Indeed, Bhagwad Jal Park did say that: “[I]f god is real, he must come and fight his battle for himself.” To which NR replied: “Bhagwad, God is a little busy right now, so he's given us a sense of ethics and morals to go and do what's right, and some of us have created this group.”
Apparently there is a sense of “ethics and morals” that tells us to stop other’s liberty. I don’t think that’s very ethical at all. Let the gods fight out their own matters. It is a very lame excuse to say that God is busy. That’s the excuse that Islamic terrorists use when they claim to act on behalf of Allah. Please let Ganesha, Allah, whoever, fight their own battles. Or are they too incompetent to do that on their own? In which case these are mere figments of your imagination, and you should outgrow these childish ideas.
India-Australia relationship:
A matter was raised that Indian Australian relations will be damaged by this play. To this, the response is simple. It is important that the two societies allow free discussion and debate among citizens, warts and all. Through this process, people worse slowly emerge wiser and more tolerant. It is only when governments gets involved that matters can get ugly. Therefore it is important for governments to stay out of these debates. This is a matter between specific INDIVIDUALS, not between governments.
Some other related matters
NR said, “Freedom of Speech is not the same as Freedom of the Press”.
No! That’s wrong. The freedom of press is a SUBSET of freedom of speech, of liberty more broadly.
DN wrote, “We have no need to defend our actions and reactions when we have thousands of supporters, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic just to name a few.”
Sorry, that’s no justification of any government intervention against freedom of expression. As J.S. Mill wrote: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”. Thus, the right to freedom of expression is ABSOLUTE and protects even that lone voice which is opposed by everyone else. For the same reason that this person has no right to silence you. Freedom of speech is NOT democracy. It is an absolute sovereign power of the individual.
YS said, “Freedom of speech is not an absolute thing. It does not entitle anyone to denigrate people’s race or religious beliefs.”
No! That’s wrong. Freedom of speech does allow you to denigrate other’s beliefs, else all beliefs would be valid and we could never reach the truth. The idea of race is nonsense and doesn’t exist. It is a display of sheer ignorance to denigrate someone’s race. So if someone were to denigrate someone’s race, by all means show him to be a fool. But no, we don’t stop someone from saying something, even if that means he or she is exposed as a racist.
YS said, “I am unable to understand your logic, sometimes. On Kyle Sandilands matter, you were not happy with an apology alone from him. You wanted him to be sacked for a lot less offence than what we are seeing in the current issue. You are apparently a supporter of the concept of "Absolute freedom of speech" and yet you wanted him to be sacked for using "freedom of speech"! Bizarre, to say the least. You are wrong on both counts.”
The Kyle Sandilands matter is simple and clear. I did NOT oppose his right to speak out, but I opposed its content. I also insisted that he was such a fool that he did not have the capacity to be a radio host. I said that Australia is full of such ignorant fools and racists, and these fools are being promoted to high positions. I attacked Kyle’s folly directly and asked his employer to sack him. I did not need to run after the government to try to “fix” the problem. Ignorance is a problem that can’t be fixed by the government.
Medical matter – for Yadu Singh's eyes only!
Now, before I end, let me make one last comment re: the unnecessary comments that Dr Yadu Singh made re: my
Just a few days ago I was forced to visit the emergency department in the Eye and Ear Hospital in Melbourne because the “prescriptions” of two eye specialists whom I had seen were not working at all. Dr. Yadu Singh, despite my fervent and public request to him – to send me the name of any competent eye specialist in Melbourne, had not found time to assist. I had to spend 5 hours and returned at 2 am, but that’s another story. Till today, I’m basically my own resources – but let me not digress, for it seems to prompt Dr Yadu Singh into a passionate questioning of my commitment to medical science. It is all well to point (erroneously) to my (deep and abiding) commitment to science but I do hope he recalls the Hippocratic oath he must have once taken. Always easy to point fingers at others. Key extracts from the oath include: “there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say ‘I know not’, nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.”)
A few days ago I found time to print about 10 pages of comments made on the FB group "Say No to "GANESH VERSUS THE THIRD REICH", which I need to analyse before posting my detailed response.
But before I even could find the time to consider the various (mostly spurious) arguments made by many of those who form this group, its administrator, Ganesh Jaygan has removed me from the group! (strangely I can still see the group on my FB page and a space for comments – perhaps because it is an open group – don't know how this works.)
Before I was entirely ejected, one of my comments was removed. I objected to that, but looks like the administrator doesn't tolerate any discussion that might lead to the members changing their mind.
I had only made a total of about 5 comments so far. Most of my comments had outlined the concept of freedom of speech. One of my comments had a paragraph responding to a comment by one of the members (Dr Yadu Singh) who had erroneously questioned my (very strong!) commitment to science.
But by no standard could my conversation be labelled disrespectful or offensive.
It seems that this group (or at least Ganesh Jaygan) can't tolerate questions and open debate. They want to shut down the voice of EVERYONE: (a) the producers of the play, and (b) those who question them!
What should we call such people? Hindu Taliban comes to mind.
Perhaps that is but to be expected. The controlling style of the Taliban is, after all, not new to humanity. Its predecessors (amongst all religions) have been more typical of human history than those willing to tolerate free speech. Liberty is very hard to understand. Intolerance comes naturally to mankind.
Re: Ganesh Jaygan, all I can note (with deep regret) is that the Indian education system has failed badly, when even a simple discussion can't be undertaken with the "educated".
And to imagine that Hinduism is the religion that says: satyameva jayate.
How can the truth possibly win without OPEN debate? (In Islam such debate is called ijtihad – but, of course, fanatics have shut down debate in Islam, as well).
(click for larger image)
A few days ago I summarised free speech thus: "freedom of speech must be ABSOLUTE except for libel, false statements, and incitement to violence. This is a fundamental principle of the free society" [Source]
A few other thoughts that support this view:
1. Free speech is an ABSOLUTE right in the USA:
voicing opposition to policies and advocating armed opposition to the State is protected free speech, and it is certainly not terrorism. As Glenn Greenwald, a journalist and former constitutional litigator explains,The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had publicly threatened violence against political officials in a speech.The Supreme Court ruled that “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” — such as inciting a mob to burn down a house or hiring a hit man — “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force.” [Source]
Btw, this article I cite above raises some very important matters re: the recent killing of an alleged American terrorist by the US government. Do read it in full here.
2. Extract on free speech from John Danford's Roots of Freedom:
What is most clearly outside the bounds of government regulation, according to Mill, is the realm of speech and opinion. The expression of mere opinions, Mill argues, can harm no one. The suppression of any point of view is unjustifiable because to suppress an opinion is to claim a monopoly on truth, which no one possesses. The power to control the expression of opinion, then, is illegitimate. “The best government has no more title to it than the worst,” Mill says. “lt is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinon, mankind would beno more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”It is not merely unjust to suppress opinions but also unwise or even dangerous, according to Mill. “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” Thus there are two branches to his argument: “We can never be sure that the opinion we arc endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stiffing it would be an evil still.”Mill’s arguments for complete freedom of speech are probably the most famous portion of On Liberty, and are widely accepted in societies such as the United States, where the legal system in recent decades has refused to permit oven democratically elected legislatures to go very far in curtailing speech. including speech deemed offensive or obscene by a large majority. Of course, no freedom is absolutely without some limit, and, as Mill himself admitted, “even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” But of course speech in such a circumstance can readily he considered to be something other than mere words, and thus to fall into the category of action or conduct, which Mill concedes may be regulated by society.
Once again, I'd request readers to review my article: Freedom of expression: a great challenge for India, that was published in Freedom First about a year ago. There are implications from this discussion not only in the Ganesha vs. the Third Reich case (to which I'll revert when time permits) but for the Subramanian Swamy case currently going on in India.
I initially thought that Swamy had transgressed all reasonable borders and may have to be booked, but I have likely erred in a hurry. This writing was deplorable, even inciting violence, but it was not spoken directly to a potentially violent crowd. That means I must review his case carefully in the light of the principles of free speech that I am firmly wedded to (and a free society must vigorously defend).
Here are a few interesting perspectives from the comments section here. I've mixed and matched them to cluster into groups.
Taking offence is related to egotism, not religion
Taking offence is inherently egotistical, and since a core theme of all higher religions is overcoming the ego, taking offence is irreligious.
Art is entitled to shock
Best art shocks for the right reasons. I wonder if the work of great artist such as Luis Bubuel would have seen the light of day in today's context. Now you need to have your work vetted by multicultural bureaucrats because it apparently offends a non-Christian religious group. Slowly but surely we are re introducing blasphemy laws in this country.As for the "shocking power" of art, real artists are most of the time not producing work in order to shock. If it does it has nothing to do with them, it is not the intent.Ridiculous ideas should be open to ridicule, including religious myths from other cultures, unless of course the goal of multiculturalism is to adopt the artistic standards of Ayatollah Khomeny.
There has been tolerance among Christians
Monty Python's wars or The Life of Brian. Religion should not be a sacred cow, but as liable to criticism and witticism as any other form of human activity.religious people must acknowledge that others are free to say and do things that would be considered blasphemous according to their religion. The only exception I would recognise to this would be inciting hate or violence against religious people themselves.Just look at all the material from standup comics, films and theatre (some of which is funded with taxpayer dollars) that contains material which mocks Christianity. Some people get offended and/or complain but it is generally recognised that this is not something worth banning, regulating or otherwise interfering with.On that note though, Blackadder happily made light of war. So there are really no sacred cows… which is very apt.So can we get Piss Christ back at the NGV then?
But some mockery of Christ has led to cancellations of public exhibitions
remember piss christ and how that exhibition was cancelled?I found very difficult to understand why "I am Blood" created so much fuss in melbourne. I went to see it, was a bit disappointed because the works of Jean Fabre I knew were much more interesting, but definitely did not understand what in it was so "shocking"…
MY NOTE: From Wikipedia:During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne,George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.[14] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.[10]
Worship of green men from Mars should be equally protected
I personally wouldn't pray to a guy with the head of an elephant, but I believe in and worship little green men on Mars. Therefore, as a believer in an (=my) absolute truth, I would strongly object to drawings or the display or impersonation of little green men in any play or show.
Recent Comments