Free speech in “Europe”
This is a little follow-up on the topic of free speech and censorship. Recently a British member of the European parliament, Nigel Farage, attacked the Belgian President of the EU by telling him that “he has the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk”. Along the way he said that Belgium was "pretty much a non-country”.
I met Mr Farage once in Oxford and had a good laugh. I believe he would have been an excellent comedian had he not entered politics because he has the type of dry, dark, cynical sense of humour which many people like me especially enjoy. So when I watched him have a go at Mr Van Rompuy I laughed because I thought he was hilarious (not necessarily because I agreed with what he said). In any case I never thought that he would actually be censored and fined 3000 euros. To me this was neither fair nor democratic.
As I mentioned in the video (especially in reply to Saied), this goes to show that the “West” is not one, homogenous entity. There is a huge gap in the way the British understand free speech and continentals do. What is “witty” on this side of the English channel can be considered “offensive” on the other side. Perhaps this can give my readers a bit more food for thought as to where and according to what criteria a threshold for free speech should be placed.. and, indeed, whether placing such as threshold is at all possible!
I met Mr Farage once in Oxford and had a good laugh. I believe he would have been an excellent comedian had he not entered politics because he has the type of dry, dark, cynical sense of humour which many people like me especially enjoy. So when I watched him have a go at Mr Van Rompuy I laughed because I thought he was hilarious (not necessarily because I agreed with what he said). In any case I never thought that he would actually be censored and fined 3000 euros. To me this was neither fair nor democratic.
As I mentioned in the video (especially in reply to Saied), this goes to show that the “West” is not one, homogenous entity. There is a huge gap in the way the British understand free speech and continentals do. What is “witty” on this side of the English channel can be considered “offensive” on the other side. Perhaps this can give my readers a bit more food for thought as to where and according to what criteria a threshold for free speech should be placed.. and, indeed, whether placing such as threshold is at all possible!
posted by Tarek at
14:19
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Houssein, at 3:39 PM
Right. The fact is that this guy got away with a small fine for insulting a high personality of a foreign country, and a whole country for that matter. He did it knowing that he was violating the Parliament decorum.
The same offence in some other countries would probably led him to prison for many years. His life would have been completely destroyed for much less then that.
The way liberal democratic countries deal with free speech "boundaries" and how the legal system manages defamation, insult, and other verbal slips, is actually an important constituent of free speech.
By
Houssein, at 3:40 PM
You know, even the chinese constitution stipulates literally that:
"Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."
It has nothing to do with culture. It is in the citizens' daily life that we can measure the level of respect of free speech within a society. Saying that we guarantee free speech, however, if you slip, you will be sentenced to 5 years of prison, is a big incentive for shutting it up :-)
By
Houssein, at 3:49 PM
.. I just want to ask a small question .
why when blogger who belongs to a gang of bloggers is arrested
Bloggers attacke directly authoritarian system, whereas in other countries people respect justice and they trust in their institutions ... ?
in the case of this gentleman for example there are no facebook group to defend the aggressor or the victim, if this case happened in our country some people will directely say it's because of lack of fundamental freedoms .
why ?
By
H B J, at 10:35 PM
@hbj
because we dont trust our justice system
By
Anonymous, at 10:47 PM
@Tarek, the keyword here is "threshold"!
3000 euros fine (by European Parliament not by civil or criminal law) to an EU representative for insulting a foreign head of a EU state in not comparable to what you are implying in your "food for thought" question! really nothing to do with it and is a bit misleading if I understood your post correctly.
@HBJ because it is an authoritarian system, your answer is in your question :-) In democracies people don't fight battles they already won :) got it?
By
Sami, at 5:26 AM
As some of the commentators pointed out, we may disagree on what should be the boundaries for free speech ... but there is a large consensus about free speech as a fundamental and unquestionable right when it comes to criticizing or expressing one's political views. You won't find any democratic country that would jail its citizen for stating that the political system is corrupted or the government is not doing its job and should account for that. Actually such statements when made and proven to be right, would shake the very foundation of those political systems and most probably ruin the political career of the individuals involved.
And to generalize the issue, the general idea of a democracy is not that of a utopia or a system that can never be faulted or manipulated. It's about a system that has in its fabric, fail-safe mechanisms that allow it to overcome occasional relapses and maintain a steady curve of improvement.
By
xeyis, at 8:01 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home