Ban Ban
To no one's surprise, the U.N. has come out against basic human rights.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned the airing of Geert Wilders` offensively anti-Islamic film, according to a statement of the United Nations issued in New York on Friday."
I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders` offensively anti-Islamic film. There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.
I haven't seen the film, so I can't say how offensive it is, but note that Ban Ki-moon's problem is not that the film is offensive, but that it was shown at all. In other words, the right of free expression is at stake here. "Hate speech," whatever that means (and it sure shouldn't mean what Ban Ki-moon doesn't like), should be just as protected as any other political speech.
As far as "incitement to violence," there are countless nasty (and sometimes accurate) things that people say about each other all over the world. If the response to such general statements is violence, then the ones to condemn are those who commit the violence.
3 Comments:
But what if the film calls Mohammed a "champagne-sipping bum"? I'm about as close to a First Amendment absolutist as you're likely to find, and completely agree that hate speech is properly protected, and then combated with more speech, not censorship. However, I recognize the reality that most countries and cultures (including our own Supreme Court) feel differently than I do. I therefore would hesitate to assert that restrictions on hate speech constitute a denial of basic human rights.
I don't hesitate for a second. So-called hate speech is indistinguishable from any other political speech as a legal category. Ban that, you've successfully banned any controversial political speech, and that is what the basic human right of free expression is about. (Funny, I thought you supported Obama because you supported our rights.)
Oh, I most certainly agree with you about the merits (and sincerely hope Obama does too). I'm just pointing out that the Sec.Gen. is not taking a particularly controversial position here, particularly for a non-American.
Post a Comment
<< Home