Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the insider view information. I think nobody - not even the blogger (I have to admit I “cheated”: my French is not that good, I read the Czech translation of the article) - doubts that freedom of speech is an unassailable part of our Western culture. The question is only whether this implies the right to offend, insult, which is very different from the right to question or criticise others.

The same punch in the face might cause only a bloody nose for one victim but be a health hazard for a frail person. I think this distinction should be applied also to verbal (or cartoon) “punches”. The archbishop of Paris condemned the massacre and saw the cartoons (including those targeting Christianity) only as being in an extremely bad taste. Many Muslims, including their leaders, while still condemning the terrorist assault, felt extremely offended by them.

The French inspired many with their “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”. I hope the “Je sui Charlie” movement, seen as defending the “right to offend those I disagree with or don't like” will not become as representative of the French contribution to 21st century Western culture as that noble slogan became in the 19th century.

Hi George,

Punching someone in the face (or beheading them etc.) because you disagree with them is not freedom of speech but violence. There are laws in most places against that.

Of course some of the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo were in very poor taste, cheap shots, very offensive and insulting. I wouldn't agree with many of them. But that's what free speech means: the right to publish or express views that you or I don't agree with.

Do we have to go through this all over again ? - that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to offend, the right to make comments that somebody, somewhere, might find offensive or insulting.

The alternative is ? Only to make bland, careful statements that one is sure will not criticise, offend or insult someone or their views ? Or not to make any remarks at all, just to be on the safe side ? Is that the sort of society you want to live in ?

Joe

.

Dear George,

.

« The question is only whether this implies the right to offend, insult, which is very different from the right to question or criticise others. »
.

That’s right, George, that is the crux of the problem.

The other question is “who decides what I am allowed to do and what I am not allowed to do in my own country?”. Who decides the laws I must respect?

In international law a state or a governing body has the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. The principle of sovereignty applies.

Law and justice are determined and administered by the political regimes they serve.

The United Nations estimates that 60% of people in the world do not have access to justice and even where justice systems exist, they are often corrupt or discriminatory.

In 2012, Amnesty International found that 101of the 196 countries in the world repress their people’s right to freedom of expression; 80 countries systematically conduct unfair trials denying their citizens justice and 112 countries torture their citizens. By the end of 2013, according to the United Nations, 51.2 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations.

Amnesty challenges the sacrosanct concept of sovereignty. It declares: “In pursuit of freedoms, rights and equality, we need to rethink sovereignty. States routinely claim sovereignty – equating it to control over internal affairs without external interference – so they can do what they want … we need to redefine sovereignty and recognize both global solidarity and global responsibility.

In this context, so far as the dichotomy “freedom and religion” is concerned, it is my opinion that religions should be made autocephalous in each sovereign state. At the international level, the Human Rights laws to apply in respect of freedom of the press, freedom of expression and religion should be established within the framework of the United Nations.

The same procedure should apply as regards such matters as the wearing of the veil and other religious signs and symbols.

.

Ah...humans are full of hypocisy - coud be humanity's defining trait.

Get a load of this from 2005...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm

"France's Catholic Church has won a court injunction to ban a clothing advertisement based on Leonardo da Vinci's Christ's Last Supper.

The display was ruled "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", by a judge.

The church objected to the female version of the fresco, which includes a female Christ, used by clothing designers Marithe et Francois Girbaud.

The authorities in the Italian city of Milan banned the poster last month.

The French judge in the case ordered that all posters on display should be taken down within three days.

The association which represented the church was also awarded costs."

Loudmouth: that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to offend, the right to make comments that somebody, somewhere, might find offensive or insulting.

The important word here being "Might."

I find that "being offended" has become an Industry. Most of "being offended" is couched in the name of Political Correctness. Often I hear the expression, "You can't say, or do, that, someone "might" be offended." This is used as a means of restricting a persons means of expression. Eg; If I said, "Black Ba$ta&d" to an Aboriginal that would be offensive to that person. If an Aboriginal person said, "White C###" to me. Apparently that isn't, if you wished to pursue the matter through the Courts.

I find that most Politically Correct people feign offence at anything they can so they can appear to be more Political Correct than their Compatriots. A sort of one upmanship that really has got out of hand.

Often I ask people who say that if, they, are personally offended. Mostly they answer "No, but someone "might" take offence." & some times they feign offence because that is the Politically Correct thing to do. Difference between being on display in Public & being at Home with the Hubby & Kids.

It's the same with some Political Cartoons, such as Larry Pickering. Feigning disgust in Public & laughing at the cartoon at home.

Hi there BANJO PATERSON...

I read where you quote a United Nations estimate that 60% of the world's population doesn't have access to an equitable justice system ? And even those of that 60% who do, find their form of justice is invariably corrupt ?

I wasn't aware of those UN figures you've quoted herein ? However, even in an enlightened developed nation like Australia, access to justice in criminal jurisprudence, that too is questionable as well ? Most would accept the proposition; 'there's one law for the rich, and another for the poor' ? Sad but nevertheless true.

However, if you happen to be a well known, high profile ne'er do well, notwithstanding a publicly funded defence, is rigorously 'means tested'. Mysteriously then it would appear the Public Defender manages to dig very deeply within their 'cash strapped' budget to locate sufficient funds to brief a prominent SC or alternatively a QC to act for that individual ?

All the while, we the masses, if we wish access to justice we must first, pay for it ! An extraordinary situation isn't it, we need to 'purchase' our justice, here in good ol' developed Oz, in 2015 ? One should have no illusions about justice, either here in Australia, the United States or Great Britain for that matter. If you have immensely deep pockets, if it's justice you want, generally speaking it's justice you'll get ?

Regrettably, barrister's as a rule don't offer a Lay By option, though some might furnish you with some assistance, to mortgage one's home perhaps, in order to fund your legal defence, you can only approach them I suppose ?