On Rights And Limits To Freedom Of Speech

DR Hesham R Lotfy at Unam wrote a letter to The Namibian on March 14 where he gave arguments for stricter limits to freedom of expression than are there at present.

He recommended the limit because “freedom of speech does not provide a right to say what you think if it offends the right of others”. Now the question is what “offend the rights of others” means, and how does it relate to “offend the feelings of others”? At present in liberal democracies, the limit is set so it is a crime to urge ethnic hatred and/or urge violence and express threats to other groups.That is reasonable.Threatening other groups or stirring up mobs to use violence against groups is a crime.To offend feelings is another thing.It happens when there is freedom of speech and it is part of the game.If we have the right to comment on politicians, critique religious fanatics who resort to violence or just simply express our views on economy, education, city planning, pieces of art or whatever, it may be unpleasant and hurtful to the feelings of those in power or who think differently.If we think that hurting the feelings of others is to offend their rights and set the limits for freedom of speech accordingly, we would soon have dismantled freedom of speech.Cartooning is way of making comments where one image says more than a thousand words.Cartoons build on analogies and similarities.Churchill as a Bulldog is about Englishness, stubbornness and partly his outlook.In the prophet case, it is a fact that between September 11 2001 and the publication, there have been 4 200 violent attacks in the world with Islamic motives and with deadly consequences.It cannot be so that the rest of the world must be silent about this sad fact.There must be a right to comment on it and express disgust about it.One simple way was to make the cartoons.At whom and how should decent, caring, good Muslims who feel offended, direct their outrage? I suggest such fanatics as Abu Hamsa in the Finsbury mosque in London and others who use violence in the name of God should be the ones to blame.They are the people who create the connection between Islam and violence in the minds of the millions.Those who are brought up Muslims, who are decent people and who feel comfort in their faith – they are the people who will have to live with their faith tainted with connection to violence and fanaticism because about one out of ten thousand or so Muslims commit or support crimes in the name of God.To preach in the mosque that every Muslim has the right to kill infidels and manage to really stir up aggressive feelings so doing (Abu Hamsa in Finsbury) is definitely a crime.To comment on it and express one’s disgust, that is a right.After the London bombings, the first thing the Lord Mayor, Ken Livingstone, did was to go out publicly and tell people that only the perpetrators themselves were to blame.No guilt by association is fair and people should not turn feelings against Islam and innocent Muslims.Some Muslim leaders said the same thing regarding the Danish.No one who happens to be a Dane, except those who published the cartoons, has anything with it to do and cannot be blamed.Some Muslim leaders also commented on the over-reaction.But thousands preferred to turn against those who comment on violent Islamist extremism instead of turning against those who commit it to the shame of other Muslims.Dr Lotfy, we should safeguard the right to free speech and not let the cartoon case be a pretext for restricting freedom of speech.There are always a lot of powerful people who are ill at ease with freedom of speech, as it will sometimes offend them.Free speech is sometimes tasteless and satire is sometimes not fun but only blunt.All that we must be able to take if we want to have the right to express critique, come up with good ideas, bring the self-glorifying down to earth and make a joke of what is worth a joke.That is, if we want to live in freedom, we should never be too respectful of authority that demands respect, including religious authority.Happy Secular Liberal WindhoekNow the question is what “offend the rights of others” means, and how does it relate to “offend the feelings of others”? At present in liberal democracies, the limit is set so it is a crime to urge ethnic hatred and/or urge violence and express threats to other groups.That is reasonable.Threatening other groups or stirring up mobs to use violence against groups is a crime.To offend feelings is another thing.It happens when there is freedom of speech and it is part of the game.If we have the right to comment on politicians, critique religious fanatics who resort to violence or just simply express our views on economy, education, city planning, pieces of art or whatever, it may be unpleasant and hurtful to the feelings of those in power or who think differently.If we think that hurting the feelings of others is to offend their rights and set the limits for freedom of speech accordingly, we would soon have dismantled freedom of speech.Cartooning is way of making comments where one image says more than a thousand words.Cartoons build on analogies and similarities.Churchill as a Bulldog is about Englishness, stubbornness and partly his outlook.In the prophet case, it is a fact that between September 11 2001 and the publication, there have been 4 200 violent attacks in the world with Islamic motives and with deadly consequences.It cannot be so that the rest of the world must be silent about this sad fact.There must be a right to comment on it and express disgust about it.One simple way was to make the cartoons.At whom and how should decent, caring, good Muslims who feel offended, direct their outrage? I suggest such fanatics as Abu Hamsa in the Finsbury mosque in London and others who use violence in the name of God should be the ones to blame.They are the people who create the connection between Islam and violence in the minds of the millions.Those who are brought up Muslims, who are decent people and who feel comfort in their faith – they are the people who will have to live with their faith tainted with connection to violence and fanaticism because about one out of ten thousand or so Muslims commit or support crimes in the name of God.To preach in the mosque that every Muslim has the right to kill infidels and manage to really stir up aggressive feelings so doing (Abu Hamsa in Finsbury) is definitely a crime.To comment on it and express one’s disgust, that is a right.After the London bombings, the first thing the Lord Mayor, Ken Livingstone, did was to go out publicly and tell people that only the perpetrators themselves were to blame.No guilt by association is fair and people should not turn feelings against Islam and innocent Muslims.Some Muslim leaders said the same thing regarding the Danish.No one who happens to be a Dane, except those who published the cartoons, has anything with it to do and cannot be blamed.Some Muslim leaders also commented on the over-reaction.But thousands preferred to turn against those who comment on violent Islamist extremism instead of turning against those who commit it to the shame of other Muslims.Dr Lotfy, we should safeguard the right to free speech and not let the cartoon case be a pretext for restricting freedom of speech.There are always a lot of powerful people who are ill at ease with freedom of speech, as it will sometimes offend them.Free speech is sometimes tasteless and satire is sometimes not fun but only blunt.All that we must be able to take if we want to have the right to express critique, come up with good ideas, bring the self-glorifying down to earth and make a joke of what is worth a joke.That is, if we want to live in freedom, we should never be too respectful of authority that demands respect, including religious authority. Happy Secular Liberal Windhoek