Danish Cartoons: Free Speech or Hate Speech ?

Faisal Kutty | 23.02.2006 22:17 | Anti-racism

“I don’t know of anything more important than freedom of expression,” said former Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory commenting on the Court’s decision to uphold Jim Keegstra’s conviction for willfully promoting hatred in 1991.

The offensive Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad have now ignited global interest in the subject. To date four Canadian media outlets have entered the fray.

Despite death and destruction, some free speech advocates have characterized this as a defining battle. It has now become a clash of extremes with both sides reeking of double standards.

Muslim extremists, some of whom regularly insult others, and dictatorships are trying to claim the moral high ground by defending the sacred in clearly non-sacred ways. An equally hypocritical extreme in the West is pretending as if there are no limits and as if subjective restraint is not exercised daily. Many of the nations where these cartoons have been published have laws against anti-Semitism and rightly so (for an excellent summary of the situation in Europe see Professor Ruti Teitel’s article). In fact, about two weeks ago Italian prosecutors even announced charges against eleven individuals who displayed Nazi symbols during a football game. Meanwhile, media in Italy have reproduced the cartoons with impunity. Indeed, even in Denmark there are limits. The offending newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, refused to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003 because they would “offend.” Moreover, section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy while section 266b prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade others on various grounds. Of course even limits and laws are viewed through political, social and philosophical lens and so the public prosecutor determined that these cartoons did not violate any laws. Freedom of expression is alive and well in Canada, but cannot be used as a carte blanche. We have restrictions. We have libel laws and censorship of various forms in keeping with “community standards.” Moreover, criminal and human rights legislation also restrict free speech in the interest of protecting minorities and maintaining harmony. Section 319 of the Criminal Code proscribes statements that incite or promote hate. Convictions have been few and far between because of the specific intent required, but it has withstood constitutional challenges. CLICK HERE to read the rest of the article...

Faisal Kutty
e-mail: IMCuk~AT~FaisalKutty.com
Homepage: http://www.faisalkutty.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

both!

24.02.2006 00:46

next...

realist

Danish cartoons same as nazi cartoons- to help mass murder an ethnic group

24.02.2006 11:19

Do we have laws against the murder of christians, or do we have laws against the murder of humans?

Do we have laws against the assault of muslims, or do we have laws against the assault of humans?

Do we have laws against the rape of jews, or do we have laws against the rape of humans?

THERE IS A VERY GOOD REASON WHY SOME EUROPEAN NATIONS HAVE LAWS THAT SPECIFICALLY DEFINE THE SO-CALLED RACE OF THE VICTIM, AND IT HAS ***NOTHING** TO DO WITH SPECIAL PROTECTION FOR A ONCE PERSECUTED GROUP. It has EVERYTHING to do with ensuring that one group has power way beyond that which it deserves according to its numerical size.

QUOTE
Many of the nations where these cartoons have been published have laws against anti-Semitism and rightly so
UNQUOTE

Such laws show that NOTHING was learned from the crimes of Adolf Hitler. It is notable that the US DOES NOT have such laws. Why? Because there, the constitution states that ALL MEN ARE EQUAL, and thus law that protects one 'race' must protect all.

Selective rights, based on 'race' were the defining factor of nazi Germany. It is obscene that many European nations operate under such principles today. So bad is this racism, that France was allowed to deny muslim women an eductaion for daring to follow certain specific tenants of their personal faith.

Today, we see precisely why so many European countries maintained race-specific laws, with the vile European program demonising muslims. Instead of these countries having laws stating that demonising all groups on the basis of 'race' is wrong, the have laws stating that ONLY one group is to be protected.

At any moment in history, there are powerful groups, and there are vunerable groups. Fair laws exist to protect the vunerable.

Laws designed to target or protect SPECIFIC ethnic groups are by definition EVIL, are represent the belief that some humans are superior to others by ethnic definition (the same logic that made human slavery legal).

The article above is clearly designed to continue to muddy the waters, and allow the demonisation of muslims to continue unabated. Anti-jewish propaganda produced by the nazis of the 1930's was NEVER an issue of free speech, because of the intent of such propaganda. Anti-muslim propaganda produced by Blair and his supporters is NEVER an issue of free speech, because of the intent of such propaganda- namely to facility the holocaust of muslims.

twilight

Proof, twilight?

25.02.2006 13:19

"Holocaust of muslims".... I think that's a little melodramatic isn't it? Now I really haten muslims and would like nothing more than to see them gotten rid of, but that isn't the case. In fact, our government has been constantly crawling round these muslim organisations. Are you by any chance a muslim, twilight? It's just that these insane, paranoid ramblings of yours have much in common with what extremist muslims say.

Humpty Dumpty

all the kings men

25.02.2006 16:16

The Russian war on Chechnya is genocide.
The US war on Iraq is genocide.
I take it you are pro-genocide of Islamic peoples. If you think genocide can only be applied to 'others' then you are heading for a great fall.

wikipedia -
"Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Danny

Censorship is never justified

04.03.2006 08:13

Any possible background on the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten (another indy site pointed out correctly that he is a neocon,etc.) might explain a willingness to publish these things but not the original reason for bringing them into existence. A Danish writer wanting an illustrator for a book critical of Islam noted that such was not to be found due to FEAR OF DEATH. People have been murdered in Europe for essentially saying "boo" to this religion. Perhaps if Sweden and other countries would cut off some of the free money to the Arab world the Imams would sit up and take notice. Also I know of, at least, one IMC site which has censored ( ie. deleted) any link to the cartoons.

Werner