BUIDING THE VALUES OF A GLOBALIZED WORLD

In the famous book, The Clash of Civilizations Samuel Huntington argues that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. To make his point Huntington points to irreconcilable differences between the Islamic world and the West.

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

To Comment On this Blog, click on the link that reads No Comments or The number of comments posted, below.