A Thriving and Robust Democracy - Essay Example

A thriving and robust democracy, it is often said, can only be achieved when basic human rights are preserved. Cherished principles like press freedom, religious freedom, diversity and pluralism are indispensable requirements of a democratic society. It is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to argue against the validity of these principles. But as the world grows increasingly complex, we often see a situation wherein two principles – both valid – find themselves in collision with each other, and the difficult decision has to be made of deciding which one has primacy over the other. Very recently, an international incident happened to precisely involves a competition between two equally-important values: free speech and religious freedom. Last year, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons – twelve in all – about Islam and the Prophet Mohammad that was deemed offensive by the Islamic community at large. To illustrate, one cartoon showed Mohammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb. The issue generated international controversy. Some newspapers outside Denmark reprinted the cartoons in support of the concept of free speech. Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the newspaper, stated: The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. On the other hand, the Islamic community demonstrated their outrage at the cartoons through worldwide protests and calls of boycotts. They condemned the drawings as a form of hate speech and decried what they consider to be the offensive depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as well as the not-so-subtle link made between Islam and terrorism. This whole controversy makes a very interesting case for examining the role of the law in settling disputes that involve competing legal concepts reflective of competing values. There is a clear diversity issue at stake, it is not difficult to give credence to the arguments of Muslims all over the world that such depiction of their leader will foment even further inter-religious conflict, will marginalize Muslims and will be a setback for the cause of diversity and pluralism. On the other hand, there is no dispelling the argument as well that free speech is a right that should be cherished and protected. It protects not only the speech we love, but also the speech we hate. How then is this resolved? First, there must be an acknowledgement that there is no one way to resolve it. The law is infused with irresolvably opposed principles and ideals, no longer a fabric of clearly-defined spectrums, but is rather a patchwork quilt of various shades of gray. Having said this, we now proceed to analyze the difficult questions posed by the issue at hand. it must be noted that one area where judicial discretion is especially large is the area of free speech. While the right to free speech is a crystallized principle that has been place almost since the beginning of time, enjoying a cherished position in the bill of rights of virtually all civilized legal systems, the interpretation of what constitutes free and protected speech still has yet to be perfectly refined. This provision has been invoked many times over in the course of history, successfully and unsuccessfully; and Courts have had many opportunities to set standards and devise guidelines to determine if the speech in question should be protected or not. It becomes more difficult when the right to free speech competes with another right, in this case, the right of religious minority groups to tolerance and acceptance. In “easy” cases, all that should be done is look through jurisprudence until one finds the applicable case with similar facts. In “hard” cases with novel facts, the role of the judge becomes infinitely more difficult. The boundaries are ever-shifting; and internally, the judge will be trying not only to apply the law, but to subject the text or speech in question to her own subjective inquiry in order to determine the intent of the message-bearer and what the material was trying to say. Social and political values inevitably come to the fore. Meanings of words are merely “assigned meanings” born of the collective experiences of people in a community and this system of interpretation is never static. To quote legal writer Thomas Streeter (1995), “It is in the character of language, in other words, that a judge will never be able to look at the text of the Bill of Rights and legal precedents to decide whether or not flag burning is protected by the First Amendment; he will always in one way or another be forced to make a choice about whether or not he thinks it should be protected, and will always be faced with the possibility that a reasonable person could plausibly disagree.” That said, I agree with the editors of the newspaper that the right to free speech is indeed a cherished ideal and is considered a sacrosanct freedom. If one compares the violation to the newspaper and the violation to the Muslims, without meaning to denigrate their suffering which we know is starkly real, the right against censorship and prior restraint appears to be more serious, than the right to “not be mocked.” Mocking words are but manifestations of ideas – ill-formed ideas, yes, but ideas nonetheless – that are best refuted by better ideas in a free market of thought and discourse. Censorship, on the other hand, especially if state-sponsored, is a more chilling malady that does not bode well for robust democratic institutions. Of course, the most ideal solution would be to exercise restraint and sensitivity in one’s work – always taking into account the sensitivities of everyone in the community, particularly those who come from traditionally-marginalized classes, like those from religious minorities. This is, of course, an issue that has gained worldwide attention, but in a way, there are undercurrents of a similar nature in any workplace, particularly workplaces which are heterogeneous. Certainly, while censorship may not be countenanced and free expression should be the rule rather than the exception, this should be tempered with a basic value formation that celebrates differences and diversity. This would create a productive work environment that is anchored on respect for the individual, whoever he or she may be. While new developments have been introduced that have sought to alleviate the racial and religious divide in the world as well, it is incorrect to believe that the problem has been completely solved. We must be grateful that the world we have now is a more tolerant and more accepting world, but we must still try to think of steps to make further changes. ### REFERENCE Streeter, T. (1995) Some Thoughts on Free Speech, Language and the Rule of Law. In Jensen, R. and Allen, D. (Eds.) Freeing the First Amendment: Critical Perspectives on Freedom of Expression.31-53. New York University Press. Read More