Kamal's question is a rather vague one, directed towards
justifying certain
acts and attitudes towards people of the Muslim faith that
bedevil a number of people of India, who identify themselves with
Hindu nationalism, regardless of whether they believe in the undefined
tenets of Hinduism.
* What exactly is 'incendiary'? What is its definition?
If it is definable and defined,in a society where there is a
track record of trustworthiness of civilized and timely
law-enforcement and justice, and where a majority of a truly
democratic polity accepts it within the bounds of a Constitution, one
might say it is the prerogative of that society to establish BOUNDS to
such speech as maybe detrimental to that society's well being.
But in the absence of such safeguards, such infringements to
free-speech will be anything but tyranny of the majority in the guise
of democracy.
Now I take the liberty of suggesting to our good friend Kamal,
that perhaps he ought to pose the question to people like:
What better way to get practical advice than from practising
professionals?
At 8:13 AM -0400 9/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speech,thought,theories,lifestyle,sexual preference, artforms--should be
left to individual choice--i.e. if the state thinks it has now grown up.
mm
>
>
>Muslims, who want to live under the Islamic Sharia Law and who resort to
>incendiary speech, were told recently to get out of Australia as the
>government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
>
>Do you think that the free speech rights have been trampled on by the
>Australian govt?
>
>KJD.
>
Mike's question is rather wide. In civilised countries personal laws are usually respected so long one lives in peace with his or her neighbour. It is both a matter of give and take and tolerance. As it is no longer possible for a homogeneous population to live in clinical isolation in any progressive civilised society today; liberalism must prevail over racial, linguistic, religious and other differences which divide humanity.
Deka's question has specified one area: free speech. Free speech does not connote absolute freedom of speech; it is hedged'. Recently the UK Government has brought about new legislation to prevent acts of terrorism by incendiary speech or otherwise.
As a democracy Australia has the benefit of the rule of law.If someone is aggrieved by an infringement of the laws of free speech, he can seek recourse in the Courts. In 1991,Lord Donaldson, a former Master of the Rolls of UK, found a Cabinet Minister gulty of contempt law for defying a court order and deporting a man from Zaire while the case was pending in court. He observed "It would be a black day for the rule of law and the liberty of the subject if ministers were not accountrable to the courts for their personal actions.
Muslims today are not strictly governed by Sharia law in any country. For example, Muslims in India are subject to the Indian Penal Code rather than the harsh Quaranic laws of crime.
Bhuban
>
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
