For me, not counting understandable sympathy for the executed man, it is a reason to again draw attention to the fact that there is no absolute freedom of expression and freedom that can not be confused with usedazvolenastsyu.
I remember in September 2005. First, the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten is located next to articles about freedom of speech 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). One of the drawings shows the Prophet was a terrorist: the turban on his head had the appearance of a bomb with a lit fuse. First, in February 2006 by a wave of Muslim outcry sounded danger of physical execution occurred violent demonstrations, burning embassies and flags of Denmark and the western states. As a symbol of solidarity with the Danish newspaper cartoons reprinted newspapers in several countries of the world, including and in Belarus. However, after the editors repented for publication, explained that they "did not want to offend anyone, but just only expressed their own protest challenging the basic principle of the free world — the right to freedom of expression."
What then did such a fierce reaction from the Muslims? Fact, that the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad — peace be upon him) prohibited in Islam is not only the form of the Allah (Glory be to Him, for He is Great) and the prophets such as Muhammad (peace be upon him) or Abraham and Jesus (Isa) (let Their Names be blessed). Extermination of idols, "which throw a shadow on the ground," the victorious march of Islam began. In Islam, a minimum of 800 years, zabaroenae art, unacceptable images of living creatures, because to draw — it seems to be to "create" and "only the Creator can create, and not man." No images was vstseragchy believers from idolatry, veneration of the objects instead of Allah (praise be to Him, for He is Great). Such prohibition laid down in the Holy Scriptures, are also of the Jews. (Christians have gone the other way, but it asks for more immense clarification). Head of the Muslim Council of France Delilah Bubaker added that there It is not only freedom of speech, and in truth. "If you’re a journalist, you have the right write that anything, but only if you write honestly and write the truth. Read that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) — a terrorist — that’s not true. You have no right to state that the Prophet (peace be upon him), which we celebrate in every moment each a day or — is the founder of a terrorist religion. "
Midst of politicians, theologian and culture of people broke incredibly sensual and lively discussion on the boundaries of freedom of speech and insulting religious feelings. Press secretariat of the Vatican in a special statement that "the right to freedom of thought and expression, as enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not expand the freedom of insulting religious believers emotions even what religion. Violently protest also regrettable because intolerance physical or verbal , no matter who it manifests as an action or as a reaction to something that is a threat to peace. " "Some people forgets that can not be absolute freedom, that freedom 1 person ends there, where the rights of another person, namely the right to respect for what he considers the saints "- said one of the bishops (Stanislaw Wielgus) and the other (Sigitas Tamkyavichus) added that" freedom is impossible to cover izymatelstvo over man and religion. You can not mock religious signs and what is holy to another religion. "
Case Zdzvizhkou remembered then forgotten, very piquant question that long can not cope any lawyers or public opinion. In case, as it happens with the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), there is a series of questions such as: what is the religious feelings? Whether and how they can be hurt? Where does freedom of speech and expression, and begins a sacrilege? Or pop culture, Madonna, painters, directors Scorsese and Foreman also pervasive and annoying ads with impunity and unlimited use of religious paraphernalia, which is the other object of veneration?
There is no doubt that the practice of law in the Western world the principle of freedom of speech prevails, and the notion of innuendo, insults the honor and advantages, (especially in the case of public entities) or religious emotions and abminaetstsa neahvotaa rises because of their rasplyvistastsi and ambiguities. However, with the help of a decent lawyer can prove that untrue statements have offended someone, undermined our credibility, reputation spoiled because there was some damage caused particular, live person. But in the case of insulting religious emotions we have a relationship with sinful behavior and statements are not in our the address, but the address in the "object of worship", which may be God Himself (Praise Him, for He is great) but also Jesus Christ, Buddha, or Krishna ( They are the world), the Mother of God, relics, icons, or a cross. In the U.S., a large, almost magical and religious uses honor the national flag, but after a resounding case of a public burning of the flag of the Supreme Court referee William Brenan said: "No one in their right mind can not count the public burning of the flag for their personal insult."
That is why the European Commission Directive on Human Rights since 1997 definitely asserts that "members of the religious community must sustain nepryznavanne their other beliefs, even including the dissemination of thoughts, aggressive their faith." However, in the penal codes of some states, there are articles about such content, "Who intentionally offend religious feelings of others in the form of humiliation space created for religious ceremonies, or objects of religious worship, he shall pay a fine or restriction of liberty for up to …." In fact, the laws relating to abuse of religious emotions — dead, one hundred percent canceled or practice are not made. Christians also very weak, seemingly embarrassed to respond to insults to own the address. Either that, unlike Muslims and Christians can not unwilling to protect its own values and defend them — excellent or bad — judge for yourself.
Certainly there is no complete freedom, just as there is endless happiness. We could almost say everything and almost all do, but always have something constrains and limits, the journalistic ethics or sense of responsibility for the word, or the boss, or conscience, or the law or accepted custom. There is also full of "independence", because we can only be independent of a certain thing, but not "all".
In any case, without looking at the laws, you must adore her and respect other people. And finally, "do not do to others what we most sweet."
Tags: agreement, Sdvizhkou, cartoons, Muhamed