By Aabid Mushtaq.
How an idea or concept of free speech and expression is being wrongly interpreted and how a liberal dismantles it with a new farrago and fabricate thoughts of civilization is a disharmonious and threat to international peace and security. The recent approach of France towards the up growing of islamophobia is a blot on pragmatic and social democratic societies. The state sponsored curfew on a particular religion and making free speech and expression absolute is against the ideals of civilization and idea of freedom. An uncontrolled, unlimited freedom could be disastrous for the human societies. The questions or arguments of most western countries states that human thoughts should be unfettering and unrestricted because of changing times and openness of the societies. However, the progress and development would be impossible if human thoughts will flow freely, uncompromising and absolute. When we talk about thoughts, ideas in concurrence of absolute freedom of speech and expression we should keep in mind the different desires of humans. Human desires are such a vast if we would allow them to draw out or practice uncontrollable the same then the concept of freedom wouldn’t even exist and barbarianism replace the civilize order of the new societies.
Before getting into the debate of Islamophobia, it is must to analyze and stretch the modern concept of freedom of speech and expression in sequence and in reconciliation with civilization and liberalism. The principle of civilization is more about harmonious setups, reasonable rules and regulations and indispensable rights of justice, equality and liberty. However, when we indulge into the new ideas and changing times new demands the concept of civilization tilts towards new developments as some have declared restricted freedom a tribal idea, in simpler words an archive and stagnated. Furthermore, the principles of unity, integrity and fraternity are basis of the civilized communities. What it could be to live in, if thoughts flow freely which are contradict and repugnant to the foundational ideas of civilization, the human society where progress and development is possible through compromising dealings between people irrespective of religion, race, caste, gender, sex, place of birth etc. This would eventually create the affairs where disorder, distrust, chaos and confusion would take a front stand in the world. As mentioning one of the important era when civilization had somehow came forth, when there used to be a state of nature. People gradually come to the point where they accepted that only compromise setups would normalize the chaotic situations. The state of nature argument suggests that the people would naturally do whatever was necessary to obtain their wants and desires without considering the consequences of their actions. In the state of nature, as Hobbes depicts it, as humans intuitively desire to obtain as much power and good as they can, and there are no laws preventing them from harming and killing others to attain what they desire. This was the tribal outfit, the affairs of disharmony and radicalism. They prefer the society based on rules and regulations through social contract between a leader (king) and the subjects. This led to the better progress and development lateron, an example of civilization.
The liberal’s fail to address what trigger of violence is and reasons which leads the disharmony in the diverse communities of people. The concept of liberalism stands diluted. The blasphemous act of a teacher in France and his murder by a student with knife decapitated a teacher near a school in a suburb north of Paris and was later shot dead by the police, officials said, abruptly hitting France with a national trauma that revived memories of recent terrorist attacks. Such act was out of the intact of Islam and condemnable at the same time but where does the actual root cause of such violence has started ,keeping the whataboutery aside the trigger of violence erupted from teachers act. The remarks of the prime minister Macron about Islam was more a threat of creating distrust and creating schisms in the France , and remark of “Islam is in crises”(islamophobia) which turned a cause of back to back violence’s in the different cities of France even which divided the world countries on religious basis. When a crime occurs what law has opt to seek first is to investigate for the root causes of such crimes and to resolve the same but what today’s liberals seeks the punishment for the criminal which is brazenly bizarre thing. The crime rates could go stretching by this ideology, miseries stands increasing and violence erupting.
What international law says about the concept of freedom of speech and expression and how free flowing of thoughts, art, ideas should be is a question to determine what civilization actually is;
The right to freedom of opinion and expression is enshrined in a number of international and regional human rights instruments, including the following:
International standards;
Article 19: 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.
.Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 19),International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (article 19),International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) (article 5).
Article 10(2) of the ECHR goes even further;
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities. may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.
In the case of Mukong v. Cameroon, views adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee on 21 July 1994, Under the ICCPR, restrictions must meet a strict three-part test. First, the interference must be provided for by law. The law must be accessible and “formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct.” Second, the interference must pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 19(3). Third, the interference must be necessary to secure that aim.
…to be continued
Author is a law student at school of law, University of Kashmir. Can be reached at aabiddar299@gmail.com. Tweets @Aabidrafiqa.
