Daniel Keyes

Following my most recent post, a reader (my dad) directed me to this story.

Tragicomic irony as the United Nations Human Rights Commission urges laws banning free speech. You guessed it … it’s a Motoons thing, pushed by Pakistan and other Muslim nations, horrified that the publication of a cartoon in Denmark forced thousands of Muslims to burn cars, Danish flags and consular buildings and in a couple of cases, to kill each other.

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.’s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

Free speech, apparently no longer a human right.

As I wrote in my previous post, while the Danish cartoon scandal is old news, the true battle rages on – the battle of free speech, and freedom in general. And as the cartoons were used as ammunition in the battle against free speech during the scandal, the scandal itself continues to be used as ammunition today.

A democratic society depends on the ability of its citizens to openly exchange, debate and criticize ideas. The United Nations wants religion protected from that criticism. It’s an attack on freedom and an attack on our democratic society. While the danger of offence resulting in violence is real (we’ve seen what happens when a group gets offended by some cartoons,) it’s much more dangerous for society if we allow ideas to go unchallenged.

Here’s the original story Jules Crittenden was quoting from in his blog entry.

Update:

I didn’t post the cartoons because I figured they were accessible enough. But, as requested, here’s a link to the cartoons that caused so much commotion.

Should a public university, funded by taxpayers, be able to censor controversial speech on campus? According to the University of Calgary, the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” In spite of its stated mission to “seek truth and disseminate knowledge,” and in spite of advertising itself as “a place of education and scholarly inquiry,” the University of Calgary has charged some of its own students with “trespassing” because they set up a pro-life display on their own campus this past November.

Full Story

People have varying life perspectives – sharing those perspectives enables progress. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the message or not, cutting it off only contributes to ignorance. 

The fact the University of Calgary has allowed other controversial displays to go on raises questions about their motives in this particular case:

Moreover, the university has expressed no qualms about other controversial large colour displays, including ones showing the effects of torture on political dissidents in China, the cruelty of animal testing and the consequences of spousal abuse. It seems gory and disturbing displays on campus are fine–as long as they do not convey a politically incorrect view on abortion.

A publicly funded educational institution getting involved in a public debate is one thing – and that’s another question altogether that we can leave for another time. But, assuming it’s perfectly acceptable for them to participate in the debate, is there anything that can justify silencing the other side?