Comments on: Freedom of speech is constrained by religious sensitivities

By: babatunde israel

babatunde israel — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:13:56 +0000

Love the whole thin except for the missed up of freedom of speech against religious sensitivity…..blablabla…..who cares…..just allow individuals to speak out there minds we are not to judge anybody.Make less time wastage on religion but more on social norms…..

By: Maarten

Maarten — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:18:30 +0000

Thanks for organising this debate. It is a really important topic in today’s politics.

While the motion is an empirical claim, I didn’t quite understand why the broader politico-historical undercurrents that have caused this debate have not been addressed, such as 9/11, 7/7 in London, the Madrid bombings, the wars in the Middle East and the increasing xenophobia towards Muslim immigrants in the West.

The question often revolves around whether limiting freedom of speech equals giving in to terrorism versus keeping account of minorities’ cultural viewpoints to sustain a multicultural society. On this particular issue, I tend to adhere to the former viewpoint and believe we cannot compromise our fundamental freedoms for those who threaten to retaliate with violence. ‘Religious sensitivity’ is no valid or even applicable (how to determine when one is insulted? where does it begin, where does it end?) criteria for lawmakers, especially in a liberal democracy.

Where it becomes interesting, is the incitement of hatred. The rise of xenophobia and populism has served as a distraction for liberals who fear Muslim extremists from the right-wing extremists who pose an equally formable threat in the form of Andrei Breivik for example. The fact that right-wing extremists like him look up to right-wing populists like Geert Wilders who incite hatred against minorities need to be a wake-up call for those who get distracted by religious extremists.

Living in a multicultural society requires us to battle the incitement of hatred against minorities, especially through public discourse. But freedom of speech should never bow to religious sensitivities. We should just take care that it will not devolve into sheer xenophobia and hatred.

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:05:02 +0000

The biggest enemy of the freedom of speech is the liberal political correctness and dogmas in modern history, which can’t be explained and researched in alternative ways (prison if you don’t agree after your research with the official numbers and methods of the Holocaust for example, etc.)

By: armin weckmann

armin weckmann — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:25:42 +0000

Actually when reading this I have to think of Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” where he aggressively counter-attacks the crude way Christians in USA try to push science out of school and even universities.
This is actually what I sometimes fear: That different beliefs (no matter if scientific or religious) fight instead of accepting each other. Up to now I was so lucky just to be confronted with mostly tolerant people. However, I know that this is not the standard case.

I voted for the motion since I don’t see a difference in insults, whether on an idea (“I totally hate math!”) or a deity (“Allah is an asshole!”) – the face of a math professor hearing the first quote may not differ greatly from the face of an imam who hears the second quote. Both quotes are made out of an ignorant state of mind and should therefore be treated equally.
Concerning punishment I cannot make a general point here. In some societies ignorance is rated higher than in others so one might beg to differ. But what I claim is that punishment for blasphemy should be not higher than punishment for breaking human rights (since freedom of religion is a human right and should be treated nor more or less than other human rights).