The row intensified on Wednesday when France Soir, alongside the 12 original cartoons, printed a new drawing on its front page showing Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption…
Those who cry “Freedom of Speech” still have to understand that this freedom, like many others, is not considered “unlimited”. Rather, there are many cases where “Freedom of Speech” is restricted and censorship laws are put into effect. So who exactly decides what constitutes valid “speech” and what does not?
Even though international human rights conventions include the “right to criticize religious and political ideas” within “Freedom of Speech”, libel, slander and defamation are clearly valid reasons to limit speech. If portraying the Messenger of Allah (May Allah bless him and grant him peace) the way these cartoons did is not “libel, slander and defamation” then God knows best what is. However, it was to a billion people… and it could thus easily come into the category of “hate-speech” meant to incite Muslims and degrade them.
One wonders whether such people, such as the Evangelical newspaper, Magazinet, that reproduced these cartoons, would consider it “freedom of speech” to defame their high standing Christian figures?
One also wonders whether our Dutch brethren in humanity understand the concept of “Freedom of Expression” in its essence, as they propogate it. They contemplate a law to ban the Hijab and make it a “crime” to wear it in public because it “oppresses women” (see: NPR) but whether one walks around naked or fully covered from head to toe it is, afterall, their own preference which comes under the freedoms theyve been entitled to? Nay or yay? So one can think about banning this, but the thought of banning something that so evidently incites violence and cries of slander is looked over.