England’s Bill of Rights 1689 granted 'freedom of speech in Parliament' and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:
"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Based on John Stuart Mill's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
the right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas.
International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.
However, although it might generally be believed that Freedom of Speech insinuates that such freedom extends to all matters other than what can rightfully be determined as 'Hate Speech', or such volatile language as to incite to riot or cause harm to another person or to the material possession of another person, the reality is that, increasingly, the right to comment on many subjects is no longer there, irrespective of the truth of the statement.
Hence, in an age when the governments of both the United Kingdom and America appear to be blatantly pro-Islamic, certainly in comparison to any other religion, it might be considered a form of 'Hate' speech to state that: "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims." This despite the fact that it is a true statement, will fall under the ever-watchful eye of our 'Big-brother' society. The mere fact that it might be considered as hate speech is sufficient to state a belief that real freedom of speech is almost dead already.
Under the new and ignominious Equality Act (2010) enacted in the UK from the beginning of this month, freedom of speech is threatened with annihilation altogether. To make a statement which causes offence to a person, even though that same person is not present when the statement is made, and even though the statement does not apply in any manner to them, now means that it is a punishable offence to do so.
The Law, masterminded and brought forward by Harriet Harman, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, seeks to make equal even that which cannot be so. For example, atheists are now given the same protection for their non-belief as religious groups for their belief. There already exists the right for an individual to have freedom of religious expression, including the right to express no form of religious belief beyond the belief that there is no God. This new Law now gives atheists credence to their non-belief in such a manner that it would be an offence to publicly state that such non-belief is wrong, and I'm certain that anyone so doing is far more likely to be awarded in favour in any case that is brought compared with the opposite situation. I feel certain that, bearing in mind the somewhat hostile attitude towards Christians, certainly in the UK, should an atheist make a statement that causes offence to a member of the Christian faith that results in a case being brought, then the atheist will triumph by citing 'freedom of expression', although denying the same freedom to the Christian at the same time.
The fact of the matter is that Christianity is under threat in the UK as never before, and to a similar extent in the USA as well. I'm not referring to the watered down version of Christianity which is used to simply define a person as being Christian despite the reality that they probably have no real religious faith at all, or at least no obvious formal practise of any faith. I'm meaning those who Christian faith is expressed through the whole manner of their living, and demonstrated constantly not only by what they say, but also by the life they live. The true Christian is the person who accepts and proclaims the risen Christ, and who aspires to be as like Christ in the way in which they conduct themselves in any and every situation. From the evidence of the last few years, it can be clearly seen that true Christianity, and therefore real Christians, is suffering from definite persecution, and this new Law will serve to increase the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment