As a member of a society, one would be expected to know, understand and exercise their rights when necessary. Therefore, a government, founded upon a self-governance theory would be formed to protect the rights of all people in their jurisdiction. This government would be one that is just and democratic to all people would then need to be active as a form of accountability to the people. Specifically, if laws are to protect all people, then laws governing communication must protect not just a majority, but also a minority opinion. Therefore, laws governing communication should primarily protect individual civil liberty even if asserted against the group majority. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives validity to this statement as is states that “ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” This is of vital importance because progress, individual liberty and freedom and a just democratic society will then be exercised for the good of the people. Progress will occur due to the flow of new and improved ideas. An individual will then be more freely open-minded about their religious or non-religious and cultural/non-cultural expression(s). Therefore, allowing their neighbor to do the same, which will then create a community of not just tolerance, but respect and a welcoming spirit of ideas.
To continue, the Greek Areopagitica story of law presents an ideal example of freedom of speech were citizens must be actively involved in their civil liberties, especially when elements of conflicting opinions arise. This story is important to a foundation of government due to its availability for discourse. All of the parties involved in this story were able to have representatives who argued for their case. Inclusively, those who were under persecution were able to have the floor and argue for their own interests and protections for a just, fair, due process in court. This will be an important aspect of free speech to keep in mind when controversial religious speakers are presented later in this essay. Individual liberty and freedom will occur in accordance to progress because when one neighbor exercises tolerance and respect for their neighbor, and these feelings are supported and acknowledged by the government, then “fear of the other,” will be very much decreased. This is because each person will then be living their life to their own morals and standards and letting the other do the same. A just democratic society will then be the umbrella to progress and individual liberty and freedom as laws and the judicial system will be created and exercised as a form of protecting these rights. In accordance to any country that identifies as democratic, it will not be perfect but it will have a strong foundation to support a just democratic society.
In relation to the case of the speakers in “Ecce Homo,” satirizing Jesus and in the artists in Jyllands-Posten satirizing Muhammed, based on my representation of law above; I would therefore protect the artists. Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin and Kurt Westergaard would be protected even though they are considered a minority to a group majority opinion. As cited above, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects these speakers, as they are simply, yet quite controversially exercising their freedom of thought. Following Article 18, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acts as support to these speakers as this right is elongated to “include freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Therefore the form in which this information was dispersed, via newspapers, online, and visually in places of gatherings is protected. My decision is based on the foundation to a just democratic nation. I would then protect anyone or any group of people who supported these artists – either vocally, in print, in tangible showcases, or any other form that represents communicative support for these artists. Equally, I would protect those who do not support these artists as their right to individual freedom and liberty.
On a personal note, as a practicing Mexican-Catholic, I would not find the visual representations of Ecce Homo,” offensive, and would therefore not protest to these publications even if they would be cited offensive by leaders of my religious beliefs. Members of my family identify themselves as proud members of the lesbian, gay and bisexual community, and we do not use our Theo-centric origins and beliefs to discriminate and much less hate our family members. We embrace and love our family members in the spirit that was cited by those in the LGBT community -supporting the images as representation of an all-loving God. Inclusively, a mentality to love all people as we love ourselves and love and appreciate and accept our family for who they are in a holistic manner while also respecting and providing validity their individuality – not solely based on each individual’s sexual orientation (s).
In conclusion, these protections, which could include violent protests, as was seen in the case of Kurt Westergaard, would not be tolerated. Such violent protests would not be an acceptable form of individual liberty and freedom. The artists behind the work did not express themselves through violence (and if so, it would not be tolerated), so it would be expected that the intended or non-intended audience would do the same. A governing society cannot express a bias towards a representation of established faiths by siding with the artists or the protesters when it comes to non-violent expression. A governing society – a just and democratic one must therefore respect and lawfully protect the individual liberty and freedom by respecting the non-violent expressions of artists, supporters and protesters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would agree with your insistence that under a progressive society and a democratic nation, the individual liberties and freedoms must be protected under law despite whether or not it goes against the group majority. Thus, it would protect all those including the artists of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons or “Ecce Homo” pictures of Jesus, the supporters, and the protesters. I would agree with this because of what Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states about everyone having a right to a religion or belief, as well as manifesting “his [or her] religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance” as well as what Article 19 states about everyone having the right “to freedom of opinion and expression…to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” in terms of the artists’, supporters’, or protesters’ rights. In terms of protesters, I would also like to cite Article 20 in that they have the right to “freedom of peaceful assembly and association” and therefore, as you state, they would not have the right to violent protests and that form of protest would not be protected. The only thing that I am left wondering is that under Article 29, as we discussed in class, it addresses some limitations to the freedom of speech in that your freedoms can’t interfere with the rights of others and can’t harm another. However, what I wonder is if a government is supposed to sit back and not interfere until someone gets harmed? How? Mentally, physically, emotionally? And at what point do they interfere? After the harm has occurred, or before the fact if they feel they can predict and prevent it? In the case of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons when people actually do get harmed and over a hundred people die in the protests, does the government have an obligation to pull the cartoons since they can’t simply stop protesters from protesting? Or does this freedom’s limitations only constitute harm when the expression itself directly harms someone? I ask these questions because freedom of speech and freedom of expression, specifically in the realm of art, often comes under close scrutiny by the public and the media, and the UDHR rights become interesting when people begin to question whether or not something constitutes art, if it has malicious intent behind it, etc. This can also be seen in another recent art exhibition that came under much pressure and controversy, “Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art,” which can be read up on here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thejewishmuseum.org/home/content/exhibitions/special/mirroring_evil/mirroring.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that your essay nicely demonstrates that democratic government (society) should protect individuals in the society to express freely; also, people’s sense of moral is an important part to think about the issue. I agree with you that rights of minorities should be protected as well as rights of minority by the law and the government.
ReplyDeleteIn Ecce Homo case, I agree that these two artists have the right to express their view and opinions and should be protected by the law although they are in the minority group in terms of opinion. In addition, these artists seem to have no intention to harm or discriminate Christian people; therefore, the law should not limit their right to freedom of expression. Also, Article 18 claims, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…” I think that also protect these artists to express their own views of religion.
I think it’s good that you clearly stated the right of people from both sides. According to Article 20, people have “the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” As long as people stay calm and peaceful, these people against these artists can express their opinion as well. It really creates a fair environment for both people. I think you are right about the case of Kurt Westergaard. Physically violent expressions should not be supported by freedom of expression and Article 20 statues it clearly.
I completely agree with your idea that the individual liberties of citizens should be protected against any scrutiny--even if their views are different than those of the majority. Part of a democratic society is having religious tolerance, and part of religious tolerance is being able to express our individual opinions about religion without being punished for it. As pointed out earlier, Article 18 clearly states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."--which means that individuals should have the right to their own belief. These beliefs should be protected even though it is not in line with the majority belief.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of "Ecce Homo", I also feel as though the artists of these cartoons should be protected due to our individual civil liberties. They are simply speaking their mind and expressing their opinion, without the intention of harming anyone or any group of people. The purpose of these cartoons was not to promote violence nor harm people of the Islam religion, but rather to simply express how the artists see the religion in their eyes.