One
might well perceive a “clash of civilizations” framework as a backdrop for the
recent global discussions on freedom of speech and religion. However from a
global citizenship perspective, the public discourse on this issue can be
viewed as part of a process of building a sustainable values-based global
community.
Building
such a global community is perhaps the greatest challenge of the twenty-first
century. It is going to require people from across the world seeing each other
in new ways that transcend the lens of national sovereignty. This is not to say
that country allegiances don’t matter; but rather that they need to matter a
bit less in terms of personal identities; and what needs to matter a bit more
is the fact that as a planet we face political, economic, and social issues
that are global in nature, and that require people working together across
political boundaries to solve them
Living
in an increasingly globalized world gives people more of a chance to look into
these issues for themselves; view how governments and societies in other
countries are dealing with them; and gain an understanding of the humanity of
those who hold a different viewpoint. No
longer does the rhetoric of a political or spiritual leader espousing a
particular point of view, go unchecked. People look around use technology tools
such as the internet, and get to know others whose values may be different then
their own.
We
find ourselves in an age where we have the opportunity to live in an
increasingly open global society. We
have the opportunity to diffuse seemingly contentious values issues by bringing
them out into the open air of world public opinion. However we can only do this
provided that (a) we are able to maintain the openness of communication
channels such as computers, tablets, and mobile phones; and (b) that we nurture
a generation of global citizens who care what goes on in the whole world and
not just in their individual countries.
From
our modern technologically enabled process of personal investigation and cross
cultural understanding comes new knowledge and often respect for those who hold
different points of view. We may disagree with their perspective but we also
can stop seeing the person on the other side as some sort of stereotype. They
may have personal views with which we don’t agree, but we also can see that
they share some of same human wants, needs, and emotions as we do. We get to
see them in roles we all share---e.g. husband, wife, worker. And from this
broader more holistic look at who constitutes the opposition, comes an ability
to more easily accept them for who they are; and respect their right to
practice their beliefs as long they do not harm others.
Freedom of Speech
and Respect for Religion
This
issue recently leaped to the attention of world public opinion after the
posting of the homemade video-----The
Innocence of Muslims. The video took
a contemptuous look at the life and values of the Prophet Mohammed, and
offended the sensibilities of many Muslims. As a result there were protests in
front of US embassies in several Middle Eastern countries, and many believe that
the killing of the American Ambassador to Libya and two other Americans was a
result of the posting of the video.
Also
as a result of this incident a global public dialogue about the value of
freedom of speech has intensified. The
US President Barack Obama articulated the case for freedom of speech when he
addressed the UN General Assembly in September. He stated--------
“Americans
have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to
express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do
so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that
without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own
views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a
diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to
silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of
faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the
strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech --
the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up
the values of understanding and mutual respect.”
The new Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi offers a different perspective
on the issue of free speech. He argued, also in a speech to the UN General
Assembly, that governments have the
right to impose limits on free speech to protect the sanctity of religion. Near the end of his
speech, Morsi issued a condemnation of the
"vicious campaign" against what "Muslims hold sacred,"
referring to the anti-Islam film that sparked protests in Egypt and across the
Middle East and North Africa. He said insulting the Prophet Muhammad was
"unacceptable."
While clarifying that
Egypt respected freedom of expression, Morsi said his country could not support
expression that was used to incite hatred, to deepen intolerance or to target a
specific religion. Freedom of expression must come with "responsibility,
President
Obama and President Morsi (and other world leaders who have spoken out on this
topic), have identified issues related to free speech that need to be
considered as we try to build a more cohesive world community built in shared
values. What is the relationship between human rights and responsibilities? Do we want a world: (a) where freedom of
speech is an absolute human right? Are
there any limits to freedom of speech and who decides what those limits are?
And/or do we want a world (b) where blasphemy of religion is a human rights
violation, and if so who decides what constitutes blasphemy.
Global Citizen
Human Rights Conversations
The
arguments for and against limits to free speech are connected to the kind of
global society in which we want to live. In the past our worlds have been
framed within the context of the nation state. The ways in which people were
allowed to practice freedom of speech depended on their country’s laws and the
whims of their rulers.
However,
as we build more and more inter-connections and inter-dependencies between
countries and peoples we must begin to look at human rights from a global
perspective as much as from a nationalistic one. If we look at the world as a whole we are
looking at a global society encompassing many different religious and cultural
beliefs; where the practice of those beliefs (if not harming others) needs to
be tolerated if not accepted. However, there will inevitably be individuals who
want to speak out about the supremacy of their faith or find fault in another’s
religious practices. In a global community, where free speech is recognized as
a basic human right, such individuals should have a right to express
themselves, as long as they do not incite actions that would harm others.
In
a global community, just as in sovereign states, the question of who decides
when speech incites actions to harm others should be decided by an independent
judicial body, and not by representatives of the parties involved in the dispute. Many
countries have established such an independent judicial function to rule on
questions of human rights, such as the United States Supreme Court.
As
of yet there is no recognized independent global judicial institution
with the power to hear appeals from citizens and institutions and render
credible opinions on global freedom of speech issues; but perhaps it is time
for one to be established. In theory the United Nations Human Rights Council
could play this role, but the Council currently has become too politicized in
its membership and operations to be a truly credible voice.
In
order for value issues such as freedom of speech to get adequately processed
and vetted at a global community level, there also needs to be better
mechanisms for citizens from different countries to interact with one another
and discuss these issues. The global citizens’-based discussion of
values issues, such as freedom of speech , is just beginning. There are many
other global values-based issues, for example gay marriage, that need to be
taken up in cross-cultural forums and discussion groups that have access to as
much real-life information as possible. World leaders need to play important
roles in convening and listening to such discussions and responding to their
outcomes.
Global
citizen dialogue on value issues also should consider the need to develop new
global policies (such as an updated Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and institutions that promote respect for the
different ways in which people currently live across the planet. It may cause
us to look more deeply at the issue often raised of responsibilities associated with the
implementation of human rights.
The
goal of contemporary global conversations on freedom of speech, and other human
rights issues, should be to help build a world community committed to a core
set of political, economic and social values; a community that respects the freedom
of the many different cultures and lifestyles that are part of our planet. This
is no easy task, but nothing could be more important than undertaking it.
: TGCI blog posts can be used on other sites/publications; but please let us know by sending an email to editor@gcitizen.org and please reference our website source: www.theglobalcitizensinitiative.org
: TGCI blog posts can be used on other sites/publications; but please let us know by sending an email to editor@gcitizen.org and please reference our website source: www.theglobalcitizensinitiative.org
To Comment On this Blog, click on the link that reads No Comments or The number of comments posted, below.
