Another GOOGLE translated piece from SVD
Incomprehensible that the EU does not stand up for free speechA document that is supposed to be a call for "peace and tolerance" manages the trick of including recognizing speech while taking away from it. The problem is that even EU signs this document, which is most distasteful, writes Magnus Norell, a researcher at the Institute of International Affairs (UI) with a focus on terrorism and the Middle East.
The only right you do not have in a democracy, the right not to be offended. [By] Magnus Norell
No one has been able to escape the videos online about Muhammad as violent, sexfixerad, cruel and a bit stupid. However took quite some time before it became public knowledge. It took several months, and the movie clip is said to refer to does not exist in the real world.You can and should ask themselves how such fiction can possibly upset someone. The answer is that the first is that in Islam there is a reluctance to even criticize, mock or ridicule one's own religious tradition, including the Prophet Mohammad. Firstly, it is about certain forces, such as Islamists and / or politicians benefit from setting the agenda for how Islam should be defined. The former, larger group cares ultimately not about whether the film (or the article, drawing or whatever it may be), even if they dislike it done. This is a problem for countries where Islam plays a role in the political structure and constitute a real conflict with the secular democratic West, whose religious and other freedoms is a fundamental precondition for genuine freedom.The latter, smaller group has unfortunately become the one who sets the agenda and controls a large part of the debate. That we in the West so easily allow ourselves to be controlled by these perpetrators are regrettable and favors in the long run only those who are not interested in either democracy or real freedom.
So, in the aftermath of all the demonstrations, riots and killings in Islamic countries, which started after various maneuvers of Islamists and politicians (without whose initiative, no one would have to know anything about the movie clip), the EU also stepped into the arena. This is in the form of a petition signed by "the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" (ie the EU relatively newly formed foreign service), General Secretaries of the "Organization of Islamic Conference" (OIC), the Arab League and the African Union " Commissioner for Peace and Security. "This document is a call for "peace and tolerance" and succeeds in that, among other things recognize freedom while taking away from it. Furthermore, we learn that the signatories have a "deep" respect for all religions and the importance of respecting all prophets no matter what religion they belong to. To the citizens of the countries covered by these organizations is neither surveyed about such documents or necessarily respect all religions or their prophets, should be beyond reasonable doubt. There are certainly many individuals who both respects several religious traditions and maybe even some prophets, but far from all.It is also reasonable to ask by what right the EU's diplomatic service tackles to share a bed with organizations such as the OIC and the Arab League, where those organizations for over a decade have done their best to curtail freedom of expression (and most other human rights as well) not only in their own Islamic countries but also in the rest of the world. Since 1999, for example, the OIC at the UN pushed for criminalizing criticism of all religion and demanding "respect" for all religions and prophets. The undemocratic and authoritarian countries gather in OIC and Arab League calls for restrictions on the fundamental rights of all is perhaps not surprising. And given the fundamental link between religion and politics that Islamic countries are so difficult to deal with, it is natural that the regimes in these countries pursue such a question.But the democratic EU folds down and makes a helpudel together with the countries of the OIC so long oppressed other religious traditions other than their own, is most distasteful. No serious observer can reasonably take statements like: "We share a profound respectfully for all religion. We are united in our belief in the fundamental importance of religious freedom and tolerance. We condemn any advocacy of religious hatred That constitutes incitement to hostility and violence ", at least seriously when they come from the countries of the OIC and the Arab League. On the contrary, these countries' regimes more on their conscience than many others in terms of abuse of religious art. That they endorse statements that they daily violate leaves a sour aftertaste. And the EU to become involved in such a hypocritical dancing does not bode well for the future role of the EU wants to play in foreign policy.That the EU (through Ashton parish) engage in such embarrassments of course explained by the recent weeks conflicts around the Islamic countries. There are two different explanations for the EU's top foreign policy authority committed this political harakiri (and eventually probably and hopefully for many years to come unlocked himself as a serious foreign policy actor).One explanatory model is that the timidity and appeasement for several years characterized Europe's response to Islamist violence directed against various writers, artists or just ordinary citizens, really because the leading politicians, journalists and scholars actually believe that "appeasment" works.From Rushdie affair onward, Europe has had its fair share of these apologists in the glow of burning embassies and murdered artists, appeal to the people of Europe not to humiliate and mock Muslims or their faith. If we only neglect to write some books, paint some pictures, do some drawings so stop the fight. In short, if we do restrictions on our freedoms (which are cornerstones of our communities) so it calms down. It seems futilt to remind that it is not working and that appeasement stubbornly continues to breed more violence and more threats of violence. The empirical data is clear here, but faith is as we know, often stronger! And since you do not want / dare / can speak directly with perpetrators of violence, we talk with those who want to talk, and the like to take advantage of to make it more difficult or even dangerous to criticize and / or mock their own countries.The second model is more cynical. This is not that you think that what you say actually has any real meaning or that a petition from the EU, OIC, Arab League and the AU would stop any violence. Here it's more about keeping up well with certain countries, and try to reassure them.At least it is a tactic that has some logic, but not the tactic works upon closer examination. Again, we talk with the "wrong" players. It is rare for perpetrators of violence who is the Secretary General of the OIC and the Arab League. But the leadership of the OIC countries and several Arab League countries are obviously happy that we in the West drew the screws on our stubborn self-indulgent citizens who continue to behave with great breadth in quality and quantity criticize, mock and satiriserar across religious traditions.The tragedy is that such statements as this joint appeal not only fail to limit violence. The earliest exacerbates the potential to strengthen free speech and promoting freedom and democracy, that must be the basis of all true religion discussion. It is the only right one has in a democracy, the right not to be offended.
I would on the other hand say, that, one of the true rights you SHOULD have in in a democracy- is the right to be offended!