20/02
This place is not one where I generally vent any pent up rage and ranting and raving is not something that I am very practiced at but there are two particular news items which are annoying me at the moment.
Whilst it is hard to ignore the greater racial issues of the “Danish Cartoons”. Where has common decency and regard for people’s opinions gone? The furore over Mel Gibson’s “Passion of Christ” was just as heated, a particular distinguishing factor was that the film was in a somewhat closed environment, you would chose to see the film, paying to see it - a discrete and definite choice, [with many walking out in disgust]. For a Moslem there are no images of the prophet, it is simply not acceptable for the prophet Mohammed to be represented in human form, Christ is represented in human form, Christ taking human form was the point [“his” actions in the film were the cause of the indignation]. To print images in the general press in full knowledge of this is simply disrespectful and wrong. To reprint them crosses the boundary, there is no defence to such actions by waving the “Freedom of Speech” banner.
The other “news” story which has raised my hackles today is that of David Irving. I admit, I have visited his website and I am appalled. It seems incredible to me that the small minded/pig headed and arrogant can, in the face of the incontrovertible evidence in testimony and written form, deny the holocaust. Arrogance is no excuse, because you don’t want to agree something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen… I can recommend the Judgment of Justice Charles Gray, who described Irving as an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathiser who “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.”
Whilst the notion of “Freedom of Speech” being an absolute “freedom” is utopian, it simply cannot be the case that it could be a reality in society. Obviously if we were in a utopian society as a notion it wouldn’t be objectionable. Society has tensions; racial, ethnic, class, amongst others and to maintain the fabric of its own existence; must set rules and boundaries. In the same way that you say thank you when someone holds a door open for you there are common courtesies which we should extend to all.
We owe each other a “duty of care”, in the same way that it is assumed that car drivers owe a duty not to drive into other drivers’ society has obligations to protect and to limit disclosure which may be harmful/ distasteful. Whilst Mr Irving and his opinions may be as disrespectful to the Jewish Community [and other victims of the Nazis], as the “Danish Cartoons” are to the Moslem faith, I feel there is a distinction; comment and discussion is fair it is open and transparent, but to simply do something that is not acceptable is simply unconscionable.
I am not seeking to make any comment on the subsequent protests, simply the act of printing the images.
Freedom of speech is not a valid argument for portraying offensive images and/or opinions without fetter, censorship can be good,
So long as speech does not directly incite racial hatred, it must remain free. Without censorship, those minority interests best limited by the “family filter” would be open on the internet [like the cinema and choosing to see a particular film we choose to censor these elements through engaging the filter.]
Spleen vented….
Bird feeder refilled, they’ve been going after the peanuts this week.
Whilst it is hard to ignore the greater racial issues of the “Danish Cartoons”. Where has common decency and regard for people’s opinions gone? The furore over Mel Gibson’s “Passion of Christ” was just as heated, a particular distinguishing factor was that the film was in a somewhat closed environment, you would chose to see the film, paying to see it - a discrete and definite choice, [with many walking out in disgust]. For a Moslem there are no images of the prophet, it is simply not acceptable for the prophet Mohammed to be represented in human form, Christ is represented in human form, Christ taking human form was the point [“his” actions in the film were the cause of the indignation]. To print images in the general press in full knowledge of this is simply disrespectful and wrong. To reprint them crosses the boundary, there is no defence to such actions by waving the “Freedom of Speech” banner.
The other “news” story which has raised my hackles today is that of David Irving. I admit, I have visited his website and I am appalled. It seems incredible to me that the small minded/pig headed and arrogant can, in the face of the incontrovertible evidence in testimony and written form, deny the holocaust. Arrogance is no excuse, because you don’t want to agree something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen… I can recommend the Judgment of Justice Charles Gray, who described Irving as an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathiser who “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.”
Whilst the notion of “Freedom of Speech” being an absolute “freedom” is utopian, it simply cannot be the case that it could be a reality in society. Obviously if we were in a utopian society as a notion it wouldn’t be objectionable. Society has tensions; racial, ethnic, class, amongst others and to maintain the fabric of its own existence; must set rules and boundaries. In the same way that you say thank you when someone holds a door open for you there are common courtesies which we should extend to all.
We owe each other a “duty of care”, in the same way that it is assumed that car drivers owe a duty not to drive into other drivers’ society has obligations to protect and to limit disclosure which may be harmful/ distasteful. Whilst Mr Irving and his opinions may be as disrespectful to the Jewish Community [and other victims of the Nazis], as the “Danish Cartoons” are to the Moslem faith, I feel there is a distinction; comment and discussion is fair it is open and transparent, but to simply do something that is not acceptable is simply unconscionable.
I am not seeking to make any comment on the subsequent protests, simply the act of printing the images.
Freedom of speech is not a valid argument for portraying offensive images and/or opinions without fetter, censorship can be good,
So long as speech does not directly incite racial hatred, it must remain free. Without censorship, those minority interests best limited by the “family filter” would be open on the internet [like the cinema and choosing to see a particular film we choose to censor these elements through engaging the filter.]
Spleen vented….
Bird feeder refilled, they’ve been going after the peanuts this week.
No comments:
Post a Comment