So, hate speech. It sucks, doesn't it? But then again, we have certain rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I don't want anyone to get the wrong end of the stick if this doesn't come out clearly - I'm not against freedom of expression or speech in any way.
BUT
I'm currently researching for an End of Year Assignment that I'm writing about 'hate speech' and 'freedom of speech' and one of my search results was Amnesty International. I've never been overly clear how I feel about them before, but this article is swaying me more towards dislike than anything else.
So the headline says 'JAILED FOR WAVING A FLAG' which would make me expect that the man the article is focused upon was involved in a protest where he rather innocently carried a flag, was a part of a parade including a flag, or that he just really likes Fun with Flags with Sheldon Cooper, and decided he wanted to wave one of his own. Obviously, in any of those situations, being arrested and jailed is bordering on the ridiculous.
Another big but though...
The article then explains that he was, in fact, leading a peaceful protest, then goes on to use a lot of emotive language about his trial and current sentence. Granted, some people aren't going to see the problems here, but here they are:
Large masses of people (e.g. protests) don't always stay peaceful and can actually be pretty intimidating and cause a lot of other disruption, even if they do stay peaceful,
In a lot of countries, the right to protest is protected - not damaged - by laws which require permission to stage marches etc, in order to allow for procedures to be put in place to ensure public safety,
It seems as though Amnesty are just trying to throw all these emotive situations at the reader in order to have them sign the petition. If the issue is freedom of speech, make it freedom of speech, not every other thing you can find in the case to take issue with,
And my favorite one, just because America and Western Europe have decided something is an 'unalienable right' does't mean it is afforded to everyone even within their own borders, so how the heck are we supposed to start stamping our feet because the rest of the world doesn't live up to our standards?
It's one of the things which really annoyed me about Michelle Obama's visit in China. In a country where we know there are restrictions on information and the internet etc, it's a pretty hostile move to go in and say - not quite in these words, but I'm sure you'll forgive me - 'you ought to be more like what the West thinks everyone should be'.
Granted, I'm looking at it from a very privileged position; I know that. I admit that I'm a very lucky, white, middle class - ish - woman who is lucky enough to be in education, to have a forum where I can post my views and not worry that I'll get arrested for them, and that I'm from one of these countries which seem to prize free flow of information, but this is one of those things that really bugs me with human rights:
We do not own the world. Britain, America, in fact, no country, has the right to steamroller over another countries views. Granted, there are certain customs we ought to protect people from, such as FGM and young women being married as soon as they have their first period, but the difference is, they're not laws that have been discussed by elected officials, or the accepted leader of a country. To me, there is a difference.
Rant over.
No comments:
Post a Comment