---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** http://www.GOANET.org ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy New Year Twenty-Ten
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:32:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]>
One of India's newspaper has a cartoon about Australians and their country goes
berserk. See below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8447465.stm
Yet, when Western Press has a cartoon about Allah or religion, it is "Freedom
of Speech".
Mario asks:
I detect some confusion here about free speech and double standards.
The suggestion is that it is somehow wrong for Australians to condemn as
"deeply offensive" being depicted as racists in an Indian newspaper, but OK for
the Indian newspaper to print a cartoon depicting the Australian police as
racists.
The controversy has arisen because Indians say the attacks on Indians is
because of their race, whereas the Australians think the attacks are by common
criminals and thugs and the race of the victims is not a factor. Obviously, no
one knows for sure.
The example used is the series of offensive Danish cartoons of the Prophet
Mohammad, when the western media claimed the cartoons were an expression of
free speech. This is not a good example.
To begin with, the reaction to the Danish cartoon by Muslim radicals was deadly
rioting in the streets of several Muslim countries, attacks and arson of Danish
embassies and even property belonging to other Europeans, as well as attempts
on the life of the Danish cartoonist as recently as last week. Over 100 people
died in the riots and the police firings on the rioting crowds to quell the
violence.
The Muslim radicals who rioted in the streets and are still trying to kill the
Danish cartoonist went far beyond any concept of free speech. As we say in
America, "Your right of free speech ends where it intersects with my skin or my
property". In addition, inciting people to chaos and violence would violate
the principle of free speech.
So far, there are no reports of Australians rioting in the streets and burning
the property of Indians over the Indian cartoon. In fact they are doing
everything they can to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice.
Secondly, I looked in vain in the BBC report for anyone claiming that the
Indian newspaper did not have the right to publish the incendiary and
incredibly offensive cartoon. All the Australians did, according to the
report, was verbally condemn the cartoons as deeply offensive.
Unless there is a double standard being used, the Indian paper had every right
to publish the cartoon under their rights of editorial free speech, and the
Australians likewise had every right to condemn the cartoons as part of their
own right of free speech.
My question is, would the students who were victims of violence in Australia
have been any safer in India? Make up your own mind.
