Tweet
FREE SPEECH IS NOT ABSOLUTE
Daily Pioneer
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/50954-free-speech-is-not-absolute.html
Jan 27 2012
India
Author: PR Kumaraswamy
Many cultures, societies and countries, including in the West, have
limits to freedom of speech and expression. Sensitivities cannaot be
entirely ignored.
Freedom of speech and expression. It sounds nice but is often a hollow
slogan. Nothing is absolute. Definitely not the freedom of expression.
Many cultures, societies and countries have limits to freedom of
expression. Some have stringent laws to enforce these limits and others
have evolved a strong norm that prohibits certain types of freedom.
Certain expressions and connotations which were the norm at one point
of time have become anathema, unacceptable and are shunned today. The
degree differs, the context varies, but limits exist; East or West.
Recently law-makers in France overwhelmingly passed a law that bans
the denial of the mass killing of Armenians during World War I by the
Ottoman Turks as genocide. While Ankara recognises that a large number
of Armenians were killed, the 'G' word is a punishable taboo in Turkey.
France's genocide law, passed despite strong opposition from Turkey,
will come into force once President Nicholas Sarkozy signs it. Under
the law, offenders will face up to one year in jail and a fine of
~@45,000 ($57,000). There are concerns that this law will turn into
a major diplomatic row between Turkey and the wider European Union.
In many countries in the West denial of the Holocaust is a punishable
offence. Rejection of the mass murder of Jews during World War II is
repugnant. Artistic freedom is no licence to deny, let alone justify,
the Holocaust. This is one of the reasons why Iran's President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust denial antics evoke revulsion in the US.
Over the years, many have fallen from their high pedestals due to
their reckless anti-Semitic utterances. Likewise, the once common
'N' word is today a recipe for political suicide in the US.
Across the world, many places of worship insist on a dress code. Some
have dietary restrictions that prevent individuals from enjoying their
favourite meals. Some of the popular fast food chains do not operate
in Israel during Sabbath in deference to their Jewish customers;
in other countries they go halal to meet the needs of their Muslim
clientele. When it came to India, McDonalds changed its menu to suit
Indian preferences. It makes commercial sense to respond to religious
specificities, restrictions and sentiments.
Then there are other cultural issues that limit the freedom of
expression of an individual. In many Middle Eastern countries
visible display of non-Islamic religions is unacceptable. In certain
countries non-Muslims are prohibited from eating in public during the
fasting month of Ramadan. Above all, depicting god or his prophet
is unacceptable in Islam and even the most beautiful portrayal of
Prophet Mohammed would be considered haram and hence punishable.
Despite the proliferation of caste politics in India, abusing someone
by his or her caste is punishable under the law of the land. Indeed,
one cannot abuse anyone under the guise of freedom of speech. As the
adage goes, your freedom ends where my nose begins.
What do these limits, restrictions and curtailments of freedom tell
us? Different societies have different ways of looking at things;
often the same thing is viewed differently. In certain conditions,
they are seen as artistic freedom and are defended unequivocally. In
others, they are seen as a perversion and uncivilised.
When the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard caricatured the Prophet,
it was considered by many European countries as an expression of his
artistic freedom. Even those who disagreed with his act defended his
right to express himself. Elsewhere, the same cartoons evoked riots
and violence.
There's a cultural clash over the controversial depiction of the
Golden Temple in Amritsar as the vacation home of Republican candidate
Mitt Romney by Jay Leno. Either the late night American comedian took
liberty with his freedom and went over-board or he was confessing his
ignorance. Still, his depiction is found to be acceptable to many
in the US, both as a sign of freedom of expression and as a sense
of humour.
This is where the cultural conflict comes in. Globalisation brought
the Golden Temple to Leno's attention but it also marked the cultural
fault line. The export of ideas and symbols come with strings: You
can only venerate and not mock at them.
Mocking Christianity has been an integral part of the West's progress
towards individual freedom. Over the centuries Christians in the West
have gradually reconciled themselves to artists taking a pot-shot
at everything that they venerate as spiritual and holy. The freedom
of expression as it has evolved in the West is still in its nascent
stage in India. The argumentative Indian often settles a dispute with
a fistfight.
People burn books, defile statues, ransack cinema halls, organise
hartals or resort to other forms of violent protest to express their
disagreement over the artistic freedom of someone or the other. This
social disorder forces Governments, irrespective of their hue and
colour, to proscribe books, ban movies and censor the flow of ideas.
The situation is so bad that at times even the intelligentsia resorts
to self-censorship. Let's not forget that The Satanic Verses was
originally rejected for its inflammatory nature by none other than
well-known writer Khushwant Singh.
The ongoing controversy over Salman Rushdie (and also the late
MF Husain) should enable us, especially the opinion-makers, to
reflect on the larger issue. True, there is a lot of politics,
double standards and moving of goal posts. Some seek cheap publicity
through such controversies. But whether one agrees with them or not,
a section of the Indian population feels offended by their artistic
work. Perhaps they never read them or understood them incorrectly;
they may even be completely wrong in their assessment.
Address their concerns, if possible enlighten them. But don't condemn
them by resorting to colourful expressions. The issue is neither
their conservatism nor anti-modernity, it is cultural specificity;
each one feels offended by some yet at the same time embraces the
other. How does one square the circle?
There is, however, a larger issue. Challenging that which is
conventional is the essence of progress. Everything that is acceptable
today was a taboo in the not-so-distant past. Freedom of expression
has broken many barriers and this struggle comes with a price. Rather
than decrying critics, those who value freedom of expression should
remember Galileo's words when he was forced to recant that the Earth
moves around the Sun: Eppur si muove (And yet it moves).
The writers teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University and is currently
in Jerusalem on a sabbatical.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Daily Pioneer
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/50954-free-speech-is-not-absolute.html
Jan 27 2012
India
Author: PR Kumaraswamy
Many cultures, societies and countries, including in the West, have
limits to freedom of speech and expression. Sensitivities cannaot be
entirely ignored.
Freedom of speech and expression. It sounds nice but is often a hollow
slogan. Nothing is absolute. Definitely not the freedom of expression.
Many cultures, societies and countries have limits to freedom of
expression. Some have stringent laws to enforce these limits and others
have evolved a strong norm that prohibits certain types of freedom.
Certain expressions and connotations which were the norm at one point
of time have become anathema, unacceptable and are shunned today. The
degree differs, the context varies, but limits exist; East or West.
Recently law-makers in France overwhelmingly passed a law that bans
the denial of the mass killing of Armenians during World War I by the
Ottoman Turks as genocide. While Ankara recognises that a large number
of Armenians were killed, the 'G' word is a punishable taboo in Turkey.
France's genocide law, passed despite strong opposition from Turkey,
will come into force once President Nicholas Sarkozy signs it. Under
the law, offenders will face up to one year in jail and a fine of
~@45,000 ($57,000). There are concerns that this law will turn into
a major diplomatic row between Turkey and the wider European Union.
In many countries in the West denial of the Holocaust is a punishable
offence. Rejection of the mass murder of Jews during World War II is
repugnant. Artistic freedom is no licence to deny, let alone justify,
the Holocaust. This is one of the reasons why Iran's President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust denial antics evoke revulsion in the US.
Over the years, many have fallen from their high pedestals due to
their reckless anti-Semitic utterances. Likewise, the once common
'N' word is today a recipe for political suicide in the US.
Across the world, many places of worship insist on a dress code. Some
have dietary restrictions that prevent individuals from enjoying their
favourite meals. Some of the popular fast food chains do not operate
in Israel during Sabbath in deference to their Jewish customers;
in other countries they go halal to meet the needs of their Muslim
clientele. When it came to India, McDonalds changed its menu to suit
Indian preferences. It makes commercial sense to respond to religious
specificities, restrictions and sentiments.
Then there are other cultural issues that limit the freedom of
expression of an individual. In many Middle Eastern countries
visible display of non-Islamic religions is unacceptable. In certain
countries non-Muslims are prohibited from eating in public during the
fasting month of Ramadan. Above all, depicting god or his prophet
is unacceptable in Islam and even the most beautiful portrayal of
Prophet Mohammed would be considered haram and hence punishable.
Despite the proliferation of caste politics in India, abusing someone
by his or her caste is punishable under the law of the land. Indeed,
one cannot abuse anyone under the guise of freedom of speech. As the
adage goes, your freedom ends where my nose begins.
What do these limits, restrictions and curtailments of freedom tell
us? Different societies have different ways of looking at things;
often the same thing is viewed differently. In certain conditions,
they are seen as artistic freedom and are defended unequivocally. In
others, they are seen as a perversion and uncivilised.
When the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard caricatured the Prophet,
it was considered by many European countries as an expression of his
artistic freedom. Even those who disagreed with his act defended his
right to express himself. Elsewhere, the same cartoons evoked riots
and violence.
There's a cultural clash over the controversial depiction of the
Golden Temple in Amritsar as the vacation home of Republican candidate
Mitt Romney by Jay Leno. Either the late night American comedian took
liberty with his freedom and went over-board or he was confessing his
ignorance. Still, his depiction is found to be acceptable to many
in the US, both as a sign of freedom of expression and as a sense
of humour.
This is where the cultural conflict comes in. Globalisation brought
the Golden Temple to Leno's attention but it also marked the cultural
fault line. The export of ideas and symbols come with strings: You
can only venerate and not mock at them.
Mocking Christianity has been an integral part of the West's progress
towards individual freedom. Over the centuries Christians in the West
have gradually reconciled themselves to artists taking a pot-shot
at everything that they venerate as spiritual and holy. The freedom
of expression as it has evolved in the West is still in its nascent
stage in India. The argumentative Indian often settles a dispute with
a fistfight.
People burn books, defile statues, ransack cinema halls, organise
hartals or resort to other forms of violent protest to express their
disagreement over the artistic freedom of someone or the other. This
social disorder forces Governments, irrespective of their hue and
colour, to proscribe books, ban movies and censor the flow of ideas.
The situation is so bad that at times even the intelligentsia resorts
to self-censorship. Let's not forget that The Satanic Verses was
originally rejected for its inflammatory nature by none other than
well-known writer Khushwant Singh.
The ongoing controversy over Salman Rushdie (and also the late
MF Husain) should enable us, especially the opinion-makers, to
reflect on the larger issue. True, there is a lot of politics,
double standards and moving of goal posts. Some seek cheap publicity
through such controversies. But whether one agrees with them or not,
a section of the Indian population feels offended by their artistic
work. Perhaps they never read them or understood them incorrectly;
they may even be completely wrong in their assessment.
Address their concerns, if possible enlighten them. But don't condemn
them by resorting to colourful expressions. The issue is neither
their conservatism nor anti-modernity, it is cultural specificity;
each one feels offended by some yet at the same time embraces the
other. How does one square the circle?
There is, however, a larger issue. Challenging that which is
conventional is the essence of progress. Everything that is acceptable
today was a taboo in the not-so-distant past. Freedom of expression
has broken many barriers and this struggle comes with a price. Rather
than decrying critics, those who value freedom of expression should
remember Galileo's words when he was forced to recant that the Earth
moves around the Sun: Eppur si muove (And yet it moves).
The writers teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University and is currently
in Jerusalem on a sabbatical.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress