One's support for the freedom of expression with regards to a particular incident in question would be based on his/her perception on the intention and mode of expression in question. If I know for a fact that a particular expression and its mode have their merits, I will wholeheartedly support it.
However, I think I support freedom of expression as an idea for fear that its limitation would cause more damage to the marginalised / oppressed voices, or their supporters. Blasphemy laws are misused in many countries, to serve the interests of the ruling / majority. In pakistan<http://www.rationalistinternational.net/Shaikh/blasphemy_laws_in_pakistan.htm>, blasphemous actions as described in the law are punishable by death; Qadiyanis / Ahmadi sectors cannot even claim themselves to be muslims under the blasphemy law. In england, blasphemy law only protects the church<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3753408.stm>(Britain is to abolish this law in this month). In many western countries anti semitic laws can put you in jail. While in some cases the law itself is enough to suppress the minorities, in other cases laws are used against minority or critics by alleging blasphemy. While we can rationally argue that blasphemy is not insulting God(s) / deities but believers, religions do not seem to share that view. Christianity and Judaism see blasphemy as contempt of God, and suggests severe punishments. Examples from Puranas and Laws in Manusmriti also suggests Blasphemy be seriously dealt with. Islamists often term blasphemers as apostates and apply the Sharia law for apostacy on them. What I am saying is that the concept of Blasphemy has its root in Religious rulings in almost all major religions. Though the feelings of the believers are hurt, such anguish are fired up by religious establishments citing the religious rules. Questioning Religious establishments are also not tolerated. Ban on Sreeni Pattathanam's book on Amritananda mayi and attempts to prosecute him, and murder of Chekannur Maulavi were not results of outrages from believers, but from power and influences of establishments. But questioning and abusing cannot be given same consideration. Some sort of scrutiny might be required to expose the attempt. But, derogatory epithets such as "*Your*religion sucks", and blatant, biased, and hypocritical statements such as " *Your* religion is disrespectful to other religions and gods" may not need much of a scrutiny to identify the intent. Although it is matters related to religions discussed with regards to freedom of expression, they happen very seldom. But, states and other powerful political organisations makes every attempts to contain voices against them. Possessing a book, visiting a person or watching a channel can all be alleged as intentions to perform crimes, let alone writing a book or making a film. "Monitored" Intellectuals are questioned and harassed at airports when they travel in the United states. In India, censor board kills the messages even before they reach the people. Advocacy for freedom of expression should be seen as advocacy for political discourse than freedom for false cries. Regards Abdulkareem On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A crucial element of what constitutes a crime is whats called *mens rea *or > the intention and when it is translated into action *actus reas* > The constitutional freedom of expression is expressly delimited by Art 19 > (2), Murali might do himself a favour reading up on those discourses before > making comments off the cuff > > > On 02/07/2008, Murali K Warier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 'Inflammatory discourse (as giving offense)' too should be covered under >> freedom of speech. Isn't it easy enough to distinguish between offensive >> speech and incitement to violence? The former is ok, the latter, not, of >> course. Saying 'your religion sucks' is ok, but saying 'go out and kill <put >> your favorite religionists here>' is not ok. >> >> It is ok to hate religions and religionists too, as long as your hate is >> not transformed into actions that jeopardize other peoples' rights. It is >> perfectly legit to hate Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Brahmins, Communists, >> Neo-liberals, Dalits, Nairs ..... (I am sure everybody here agrees with a >> partial list of the above) as long as these peoples' constitutional rights >> are not violated. >> >> Only Communist states could penalize thought crimes. >> >> Best regards, >> Murali >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't >> want to hear. >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
