[DEBATE] : Re: Itchy vs Scratchy

[muna at iafrica.com]

>From where I sit, there seems to be little said about this being a DELIBERATE 
provocation, whatever our personal beliefs or otherwise in religion - the context within 
which religion exists is relevant, but that most difficult of legal analyses, that of intent, 
refers...

It is clear that the Danes involved INTENDED to upset Muslim people.... surely, that is 
clearly hate speech?

I assume you saw the analysis I forwarded with supporting info?

Muna

> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the zen-like Marx quote in full - it is quite poetic.
> This is not the usual portrayal of a communist approach to religion
> especially in old USSR or current China.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt the effectiveness of an empathetic approach. I think
> though that if we espouse tolerance then we have to also allow for
> (verbal and/or artistic) expressions of frustration and anger whether
> this comes out in progressive or reactionary terms.
> 
> 
> 
> Other than this I have no special insight into the limits of FoS in SA
> other than my personal opinion. SA law is probably fairly competent to
> deal with this if applied fairly and properly - but this is not always
> the case - as can be seen with the Sutcliffe vs Abahlali base Mjondolo
> affair.
> 
> 
> 
> I think though that the legal decision to prohibit the publishing of
> the cartoons - in a relevant context to inform the public debate - was
> wrong. But my understanding is that this is of a temporary nature
> since it would be open to appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> Once on a radio programme I said I thought that materialistic sexist
> rap songs with reference to bitches and ho's in a climate of violence
> against women was tantamount to hate speech. A representative of FXI
> (Freedom of Expression Institute) disagreed - now I am unsure.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the four points - possibly true - but what are the
> alternatives? And from where would a universal principle emerge - if
> one is at all possible?
> 
> 
> Thanx
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/20/06, peter waterman <p.waterman at inter.nl.net> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Alan:
> >
> > [This is my last message on this topic for the time being. I'd like
> > to see if anyone else is interested to continue.]
> >
> > I note that you do not respond to my invitation to spell out the
> > extent or limits of freedom of speech (FoS) in relationship to
> > religious and/or ethnic groups in liberal-democratic (Of a Special
> > Type) South Africa.
> >
> > The examples you give of Anarcho-Punk, or earlier quotes from Monty
> > Python, are FoS - also of a special type.
> >
> > 1. They are spoken within a liberal-democratic society;
> > 2. They are uttered from a margin toward a current centre, or in any
> > case toward a traditional authority; 3. They would seem to fall into
> > a mode called 'epater la bourgeoisie' (scandalise the bourgeoisie);
> > 4. Whilst subversive they are not necessarily emancipatory.
> >
> > I do not think one can produce a universal principle from these
> > particular cases.
> >
> > Incidentally, I think Marx surpasses the critique of religion
> > (atheism) when he calls for a critique of the society that gives
> > rise to religion (socialism, presumably). He says:
> >
> > 'Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man
> > who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost
> > himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the
> > world. Man is the world of man — state, society. This state and this
> > society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the
> > world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general
> > theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in
> > popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its
> > moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of
> > consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of
> > the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true
> > reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the
> > struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
> > Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of
> > real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the
> > sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and
> > the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.'
> >
> > This passage reveals, I think, a rather more generous and humanistic
> > understanding of religion than is generally imputed to him. I think
> > it shows empathy for those who believe. I would like to take it as
> > favouring the 'indirect' struggle against religion rather than the
> > direct one.
> >
> > This would seem to be the strategy of the 10-20 year-old network,
> > Women Living Under Muslim Laws, which whilst clearly opposed to
> > Islamic fundamentalism, would also clearly avoid the
> > aggressive/provocative posture of the Dutch/Somali Neo-Liberal MP,
> > Hirsi Ali. I would suggest that the 'indirect' strategy of the WLUML
> > is not only more effective than the 'direct' approach of Hirsi Ali,
> > but also more principled.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter W.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>