Freedom of expression is considered a human right and countries that do not allow such a freedom are despised, since prohibition of expressing one’s opinion without fear of punishment is an act against humanity itself.
Freedom of expression is the driving force of democracy, which is why, countries such as China, North Korea and those of the Arab Gulf are deemed to have oppressive regimes. In our neighbourhood, Fiji has often been accused of muzzling the press and refraining people from expressing their views on the Government but interim Prime Minister Commodore Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama has promised that the constitutional reforms will ensure that every person would have the right to express his or her thoughts openly, without fear or favour. In fact, he has appealed to his citizens to express their views on the constitutional and electoral reforms, without reservation or apprehension (see Fijilink in this issue).
But observers and experts have often asked whether such freedom could be at the peril of social and community cohesion and if expression of one’s thoughts that could hurt the feelings of people, can be allowed.
According to them, restraint and responsibility should accompany freedom of speech. No one, they say, can get away condemning a nation and its people, while pointing out the socio-economic ills that such a nation can suffer.
According to the legal framework in Europe, which boasts of culturally diverse society, the right to freedom of expression should be reconciled with other rights, including freedom of belief, conscience or religion, which may often compete with each other.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression”, including the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.
But the Convention also provides that the exercise of these freedoms carries with it duties and responsibilities, and establishes that some restrictions to this right, including for “the protection of the reputation or rights of others”, may in certain circumstances be possible.
India prohibits any manner of expression, which someone might consider insulting to his or her religion, or disturbs public tranquility.
The Indian Constitution, which is one of the finest documents in the world, imposes ‘reasonable restrictions’ on the right of freedom of speech and expression. No one has the right to make statements that may affect sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with the foreign states, public order, decency and morality, dignity of courts.
Statements that are defamatory and those tending to cause public offence are also prohibited by law.
Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on colour, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.
In most countries of the world, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation,
Freedom of expression should not get beyond reason and public sentiments.
The world has seen the wrath of millions of people when someone tried to justify the actions of Adolf Hitler.
Can anyone say that those protagonists had the right to freedom of speech?
No one can dispute that India is a great country, with a great culture and heritage and that despite all the sectorial problems and violence, democracy has thrived since the country obtained independence in 1947.
No one can deny the significant strides that the country has taken over the last seven decades (especially since the introduction of economic reforms) to become the fastest growing economy in the free world.
On the same score, no one can dispute that the Indian society suffers from many evils including corruption, female foeticide, illiteracy and poverty.
Taken out of context, these problems would sound insurmountable, although many practices that would be unforgivable.
To tarnish a nation and its people for the fault of a small minority would amount to insult and dishonour would be equally unforgivable.
Some people have brought Hindi film actor Aamir Khan to their defence, suggesting that his ‘Satyameva Jayate’ (a weekly programme on Star Television Channel) is ‘more explosive’ than the comments made by some people outside India. True, Mr Khan does raise issues that cause flutter in the society. But we have never heard him condemn the nation or say that he is ‘ashamed to be an Indian,’ or that ‘all Indians should hang their heads in shame.’
There is a difference between criticising those who err and putting down an entire nation of people. The former has a corrective intention, while the latter crosses the legitimate border of decency, towards betrayal.
Just as there is no perfect human being, there is no perfect nation in this world.
We are yet to know what or who resides in Utopia, if there is one.
