 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Some thoughts on Mohammed and the freedom of speech Published on February 13, 2007 There seems to be a somewhat general opinion in my part of the world that what we call freedom, democracy, the freedom of speech etcetera, are values only prevalent, in e.g. Sweden (let alone Denmark!). Maybe we should take this into consideration once more. It is a fact, whether we like it or not, that freedom of opinion as well as freedom of speech also exist in countries with a Muslim profile. I have been brought up with a sentence that is supposed to originate from The French (pre-)Revolution: I may hate all that you say, but I will fight to death for your right to say/express/print/publish it. As an individualistic individual I support this, at the same time that I am fully aware of the fact that I am also a historical, social, and cultural individual. Hence I definitely know that I am a product of the processes of the new form of power in terms of �modernity�, capitalism, democracy, liberalism, urbanisation, individualisation, and etcetera. It is as simple as this: The concept of freedom obviously � and always - must be understood in the context of history, sociality, as well as culture. Hence we do not talk about freedom to, but rather freedom from. Freedom from the bonds of feudalism and collectivism via the bourgeois revolutions into the (new kind of loss of freedom) in terms of industrialised/individualistic societies. From feudalism to capitalism. From one set of powers to another set of powers. And this is what we say in the Swedish Constitution: �The freedom of the press is understood to mean the right of every Swedish citizen to publish written matter, without prior hindrance by a public authority or other public body, and not to be prosecuted thereafter on grounds of its content other than before a lawful court, or punished therefore other than because the content contravenes an express provision of law, enacted to preserve public order without suppressing information to the public. /My italics, AJ/ In accordance with the principles set out in paragraph one concerning freedom of the press for all, and to secure the free exchange of opinion and availability of comprehensive information, every Swedish citizen shall be free, subject to the rules contained in this Act for the protection of private rights and public safety, to express his thoughts and opinions in print, to publish official documents and to communicate information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever.� OK? Well, this could actually be looked upon � together with our quaint royalties � as some kind of reminder, or resting products if you like, of feudalism now codified into the power structures of liberalism as well as social-liberalism. Print, by all means, whatever you like, and then produce it and publish it. If you i) have access to mass-media through your big wallet, ii) have access to the net (it is a vulnerable fact that the overwhelming population of the world still haven�t made their first telephone call!, iii) have access to the liberal media and/or are a power-holder! Freedom and opinion of speech? Sure! Think whatever you like, but to print your thoughts � be bloody rich! And another thing: ��than because the content contravenes an express provision of law, enacted to preserve public order without suppressing information to the public�� But, dear friends, isn�t that exactly what has been going on in my part of the world? Isn�t that exactly the limitations of the limitations? Isn�t that exactly the limitations that e.g. Israel just now is implementing? Isn�t that exactly what we have decided � here in terms of the power-holders in terms of a national perspective, here in terms of an international perspective, here in terms of a universalistic � global perspective? So, Dear Al Jazeera or IPS: By all means have any opinion you like, but, for heaven�s sake don�t ever believe that �we� will print it! Well, after having participated for many years in the global discussion about the exploiting as well as the impoverished parts of the world I find the discussion just now as somewhat na�ve and imperialistic. It is a historical fact that global archeology, ethnology, social-anthropology, cultural geography, sociology and so on and so forth, have stated as an ipso facto that human kind as a race has been very much global for thousands of years. And, furthermore: The so called Mohammad cartoons are � of course � not images of our Prophet. Instead they are intentional and deliberate products. Grossly generalizing images of the Great Danger, the ultimate enemy, the swarthy, hook-nosed, eye-brows-identified, bearded, scimitar-armed and bombed/bombing killer. That very man (or nowadays also woman?) who after the fall of The Soviet Empire more than anything else has been the very symbol of evil. The danger of Islam per se seems to be recently invented although its long historical background. And Mohammad? Well, my Bengali wife is a secularized muslim, a socialist and a feminist, and she has been fighting all her life against patriarchal structures and oppression � and she reacted with some kind of intractable fury and rage about the anti-globalization, orientalism and racism of her new social context. And suddenly all that which seemed so unbelievable became believable. Or�? With all my love and respects Anders Jonsson
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |