The modern Western world rests on the pillars of democracy and fundamental human rights, of which freedom of expression is an essential component. The security of these rights permits the survival and development of our society, composed of individual, independent thinkers. I believe and shall argue that the Danish cartoons of prophet Mohammed should have been published and protected by law. My reasons for thinking so are that it is against the interests of social development to regard any ideas to be beyond criticism and that the right to freedom of expression protects the publication. I shall argue further that the publication cannot be deemed to be non-physical abuse targeted at prophet Mohammed as he cannot be protected under law.
First, any idea placed beyond criticism and evaluation is placed beyond rationality. Such ideas hinder the scientific and logical development of human thought. Undoubtedly, a significant proportion of the development of human thought stems from debate and refutation. Humans have in them an inextinguishable tendency toward rationality. It is our rational activities that have caused and permitted our development as a species. As Descartes stated, “cogito ergo sum”. Our ability to be individual and independent rational thinkers defines what it means to be human. Thus, the argument that prophet Mohammed must not be a victim of caricature, criticism or ridicule goes against human interests. If the Church was successful in ensuring that geocentrism was never refuted, our study of astronomy and physics would have been crushed, severely limiting scientific progress. It would be antithetical to the very principles on which our world of development and progress is built to allow, or rather compel certain ideas to be beyond criticism or refutation. Not that people should not have the right to believe in, practise and profess irrational or super-natural concepts. It is the enforcement of an inherently indisputable point of view that is troublesome. In addition, we must note that in Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, not only is the publication of such works illegal, thoughts against their God or his preaching are considered immoral and can be punished against, if discovered. This clearly does not match the ideals of modern tolerant democracies built under the European union, and must be fought against.
Second, the cartoons should be protected under (current Danish and European) law. The EU’s fundamental charter of rights protects the right to freedom of expression, encompassing a right to hold opinions and impart ideas. Unlike in Orwell’s “1984”, the author in modern-day Denmark had explicit freedom of thought and could legally express and propagate his thoughts (as compared to a situation where he could leak national military secrets, an accepted restriction of this right). To limit the freedom of expression by preventing that which could offend religious groups is to ride dangerously down a very slippery slope. There need not be a constant, defined limit of what offends religious groups that is socially accepted. Religious groups can claim anything that they dislike to be offensive, severely restricting human life. To criticise religion must be protected under law, especially in non-totalitarian, secular or multi-religion tolerant states. Therefore, the works must have been published.
Third, the publication, even if deemed to be criminal or wrong, has no victim. Prophet Muhammed is not a registered or recognised citizen or even a human being in Denmark or elsewhere in the EU. As such, he is not protected from abusive or hate speech by European or Danish law. Hate speech is popularly defined as abusive or threatening content that expresses prejudice against a particular group. The cartoons are not threatening in nature. The works can be argued not to be prejudicial, since the artists claim they are based on personal experiences and emotions. Thus, they cannot be termed “hate speech”. Assuming arguendo, even if the cartoons were “hate-speech”, the victim is non-existent, and hence, there is no crime. Consequently, the cartoons should have been published.
Lastly, it is irrelevant that the religious group he offended happened to be a minority in Denmark. The author’s criticism is clearly of the religion itself, not of its followers. The works are clearly not negative emotions targeted at minorities with totalitarian intentions or solely because they are a minority. A counter-argument along these lines is fallacious.
In conclusion, I reaffirm the importance of the protection and publication of the said cartoons. For whilst everyone is free to practise and profess any or no religion, the laws of our modern world and the ideals we have built it on are rational, and above the purview of religious irrationality. It is imperative that we protect our fundamental rights above all else and presume that any personal choice that violates our fundamental principles (as established in law) to be ultra vires. Upon this principle, we may hope to preserve the authority of our modern free world and the dignity of its citizens.
Kommentarer