It’s been a while since my last post, and over the period of
my hiatus, there have been developments across the world that has once again bought into
foray the question of free speech. First, there was the arrest of a Bangalore
based techie, who was reportedly operating a twitter account that sold ISIS
propaganda. Next, we had the Australian Café attacks by an Iranian born nut who
was provoked because” nobody” would listen to what he had to say and finally,
the tragic events at Paris that killed the crew at Charlie Hebdo.
All of these incidents are instigated by the very notion
that there is an unwritten rule in the history of this world where our species
cannot communicate to one another if it intends to offend, hurt or ( taking a
leaf out of Spielberg’s ‘Minority
Report’)- can cause a crime to occur. Essentially, these in my opinion
collectively define aspects of ‘Right to Free Speech’. If the proponents of
free speech feel so strongly about it, they should understand that it goes both
ways- It allows a Charlie Hebdo to draw the Holy Prophet, while it also allows
at the same time for ISIS to spell out their agenda freely. I therefore feel
these self-styled liberals should think before taking to the world, the idea of
free speech.
They argue that the Holy Prophet was depicted in artworks very
freely till the 13th century and I agree to that. But where I beg to
differ is to equate that with the shameful depictions of any belief as done by
the likes of Charlie Hebdo to those 13th century depictions. I’m all for satire, but there is a line that
needs to be maintained. It’s the same line that brings respect to communities
and prevents lawlessness. Every religion in the world gives its definition to
this “line” and I can therefore understand when atheists start talking about
the irrelevance of this line. What I cannot tolerate are the hypocrites who
have boundaries when it comes to religion but speak of no boundaries when it
comes to speech.
Accordingly, one of the most pressing concerns for free
speech is very simply, who defines this line? While that’s an easy question to
answer in communities that are strictly orthodox, it becomes a complicated
issue when we attempt to answer this question for a world stage with multiple
opinions, beliefs and principles. The solution in my opinion was summed up very
crudely by a journalist I recently met: “Free speech is like farting. You do it
in your personal space and people who like that sort of thing will follow you
there. It’s not something to share in a public arena. “On the other side of the
table, it is also essential for the people who get easily offended to
understand that the world we live in is today governed by multiple ideologies. The
only way to keep yourself shielded is to embrace the way the world is changing
and build tolerance in your communities. If only both sides had understood
this, the unnecessary killings over the last few weeks could have been avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment