Freedom and extreme: Where is the limit?

31/01/2015
No matter who was right or wrong, the Charlie Hebdo event has occurred and seemed to continue. This crime doesn’t come originally from religious and cultural differences. It started from suspicion, selfishness, both sides does not want to accept their differences and above all the extreme.
As the advantages of the Internet, freedom of trade and the globalization process made us feel closer to each other, the Charlie Hebdo event, in which an Islamic group (considered extreme) attacked magazine offices, caused deaths and fatal consequences, have made many people understand that the world today is still not easy to erase differences.
"Freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" is one of the most basic Human Rights, which is recognized and protected by the Constitution of the Democratic Institutions and International Conventions. However, freedom of speech is not an absolute right because limits of this right are always controversial and can be interpreted in many ways.
A lot of people are demanding political systems respect and ensure the right to Freedom of expression without any limits. And it’s even violation if there is any prohibition to an article or a caricature. On the other hand, many others want States to ensure that Freedom of speech should not exceed a certain boundaries so as not to affect adversely to the other fundamental rights, especially the "Freedom religion, Belief ".
As same as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion is also recognized and widely protected by the national institutions and international conventions. But there is no rule that determines the content and scope of this freedom.
People can follow or not to follow a certain religion or belief. It’s very difficult to stipulate when and how an individual, a community or a religion be offended that is adjusted in each situation.
The clash between the two rights is unavoidable, so the States have different measures (depends on the social context) to minimize conflicts. In the United States, freedom of speech is almost impregnable, only limited in cases of affecting to national security or when the risk of conflict is high. But some countries have strict rules to this right to prevent violation to the dignity and faith of individuals and religious communities. Or trying to reconcile.
The Charlie Hebdo events shows that almost States recognize and guarantee the two right but the level and scope of each right are adjusted to minimize conflicts. In the Western view, those who has excessive devotion to religion and does not accept criticism to their religion is considered 'extremist'. While in the Muslim society, the excessive freedom of expression, mocking their Prophet is considered libelous and inexcusable.
This difference sometimes makes some Muslims feel the freedom of expression in a democratic society unacceptable. While advocates of the freedom of expression are thinking that their efforts are being violated by extremists and for the democracy and freedom, they will not stop but continue to fight for freedom of expression which they pursue.
No matter who was right or wrong, the Charlie Hebdo event had occurred and seemed to continue. This crime doesn’t come originally from religious and cultural differences. It started from suspicion, selfishness, both sides does not want to accept their differences and above all the extreme.
As Pope Francis said that "Freedom of speech must have its limits when it insulting the faith of others" and "... Freedom of speech should be carried out without creating offense."
The event also showed that expression of what we think or desire is basic "Right" but it can only be good to everyone and society when it’s taking place in harmonious relationship with the other rights, along with respect for dignity, faith and values of individuals and communities.
Religions always teach people to be good and desire to build a better society. Practices may be different, but in general there is no religion which advocates killing, they just enhance forgiveness.
The opposition between the West and extreme spirit will remain once the poverty and injustice have not terminated. Freedom of expression will really be helpful if is used to make the world understand about the situation and causes of the poor communities. The hatred will end once poverty is terminated and institutional civilization appearing.
The moment before fading away, Jesus asked God to forgive the soldiers who executed him because they didn’t know what they had done was wrong. The elite of any religion will always forgive those who ridicule or satire the religion because they don’t really understand it. Forgiveness is the best way to resolve the contradictions and conflicts between religions and civilizations.
The power of Freedom of expression may be a useful tool to help erase the differences between cultures, institutions, countries and religious and make people understand each other more. Then criticism, satire will decrease and extreme spirit will have no place./.

Chia sẻ bài viết ^^
Other post

All comments [ 0 ]


Your comments