|
The Danish cartoons and freedom of expression
This Bengladeshi editorial starts out as a perfectly reasonable (if academic) essay about the role of religion in the West, then suddenly turns into a justification for the cult of Muslim Victimhood (TM)Unsavoury characterization of Prophet Mohammed (SM) in the cartoons published by a Danish newspaper and reproduced by several European newspapers have brought to the fore the modern debate on limits of freedom of expression and speech. It is generally accepted that freedom of expression is circumscribed by its adverse fall-out on the dignity of the individual (libel) or the majesty of the divinity (blasphemy). Society by definition being a conglomeration of diverse individuals societal responsibility demands that rights of the members of the society not be intruded upon. Libel laws exist in a variety of forms to safeguard individual honour. Similarly, blasphemy laws enacted in many countries, though increasingly falling into disuse, are aimed at protecting the majesty of God. Black's Law Dictionary defines blasphemy as: "Any oral or written reproach maliciously cast upon God, His name, attributes or religion." The Catholic Encyclopedia considers blasphemy as heretical when insult to God involves a declaration that is against the faith; imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon Divinity; and contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt or indignation towards God. Interestingly, British Criminal law contains in its statute book law relating to blasphemy even today though it was developed mainly during the 18th century to protect the Anglican version of Christianity. As late as 1979, the House of Lords upheld a prosecution on charge of blasphemy centering on the publication of an erotic homosexual poem about Jesus Christ in a British weekly. When the decision was challenged, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that protection for religious freedom was superior in this case to protection of freedom of expression. The arguments proffered in this essay are not for enacting blasphemy laws. On the contrary, the First Amendment to the US Constitution insisting that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion," a declaration powerfully pursued by the US Supreme Court to ensure separation of the Church from the State and generally emulated by developed economies, should act as beacon light to ships sailing against the tumultuous waves of the 21st century seas. Posted by: ryuge 2006-02-12 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=142432 |