Recently at the U.N. meeting, the
presidents of Egypt and Yemen, as well as certain other leaders of
some Islamic nations, came out condemning president Obama's recent
endorsement of free speech around the world. President Morsi of Egypt
spoke of a recent short online video insulting the prophet Muhammed,
as it has led to violence including the ddeath of the American
ambassador to Libya and some of his staff members. He argued that
Egypt allowed freedom of expression, but only as long as it causes no
harm to anyone or incite hatred. President Hadi of Yemen started a
speech by demanding curbs on freedom of expression that insults
religion. President Zardari of Pakistan went even further, stating
his wish that insults to religion be criminalized. Nabil Elaraby of
the Arab League also stated a desire for “spiritual harm” to be
criminalized. Iranian president Ahmedinejad also condemned free
speech, as well as American campaign spending.
These issues are a challenge to
regulate and legislate, as both sides of the argument are deeply
entrenched in cultural relativism. Western, and especially American,
views are wildly in favor of free speech with no restrictions. It has
become such an intrinsic part of our cultural values that prohibiting
free speech is anathema to our ideas of basic human rights and we see
any limit of free speech as an attack not only against the peoples
affected by it but also our own national and regional values and
power. On the other hand, in the Middle Eastern countries referenced,
Islam is the major religion and influences policy and daily life.
Insults to the prophet Muhammed are considered disrespectful and
inflammatory acts, and in a nation with much if not all of its
policies dictated by religion, such insults are unacceptable. The
issue comes now down to free speech on an international scale. Many
of the aforementioned leaders not only defended limits on freedom of
speech in their own country, but demanded that these same limits be
enacted worldwide in an attempt to foster peace and respect. So now,
other countries must weigh the costs and benefits of sticking to
their own moral imperatives vs. acquiescing to demands for limits on
free speech in order to foster peace. Hopefully this will not end in
threats of military violence, but if so both sides of the argument
must decide whether their cultural beliefs are inviolable enough to
justify war.
No comments:
Post a Comment