The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

"Limitations on freedom of expression keep increasing in European countries"

2020-08-14T08:36:59.455Z


FIGAROVOX / INTERVIEW - The Scottish government is backing a bill to penalize statements 'likely to incite hatred'. Comedians like "Mr Bean" have expressed their concern about this text. According to Anastasia Colosimo, the vague notion of “hate speech”, promoted by militant associations, casts suspicion on many opinions. This results in self-censorship and fear of speaking out.


Anastasia Colosimo, doctor in political theory, is the author of a remarkable essay, Les Bûchers de la liberté (Stock, 2016), Elina and Louis Pauwels Prize.

FIGAROVOX. - The Scottish government introduces a bill against “hate speech”, aimed at penalizing speech, writing and possession of content “likely to incite hatred”. According to the Minister of Justice, Humza Yousaf, this bill aims to fight against discrimination based on age, disability, origin, religion and sexual orientation. A group of artists, including actress Elaine C. Smith and comedian Rowan Atkinson, alias "Mister Bean", have expressed concern that this measure will severely hamper freedom of expression and lead to self-censorship . Do you share their concern?

Anastasia COLOSIMO. - Absolutely. And this worry is not new. Neither in the United Kingdom, since “Mister Bean” was already moved, in 2012, by a growing repression of freedom of expression. He then called for the need for the “right to offend”. Neither in France: the bill strongly criticized in Scotland hardly deviates from the legislation in force in our country for many years.

In the majority of European countries, since the 1970s, limitations on freedom of expression have continued to increase according to three logics: the introduction of the concepts of race, nation, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, identity and sexual orientation; the extension of protection from the individual to the group; the hardening of the penalties incurred.

These limitations are all guided by the idea of ​​condemning so-called hate speech , hate speech , considered offensive to people and harmful to democratic debate. While the intention may seem good, the consequences are disastrous.

Protecting each other's feelings - a very subjective and uncertain thing - takes precedence over safeguarding freedom of expression.

Regarding the offense to persons, the introduction of new categories in the laws opened Pandora's box, established victimization competition between minorities and an unprecedented inflation of cases where the protection of the feelings of some and of others - so subjective and uncertain - takes precedence over the safeguard of freedom of expression.

With regard to democratic debate, the growing repression of so-called hate speech, with a preference for a posteriori condemnation rather than a real a priori educational work , has led to a radicalization of those whose speeches are deemed unacceptable.

In both cases, the phenomenon is particularly dangerous, because it corrupts the very idea of ​​freedom of expression. As the European Court of Human Rights recalled in 1976, this freedom “applies not only to“ information ”or“ ideas ”received with favor or considered to be inoffensive or indifferent, but also for those which offend, shock or worry the state or any part of the population. This is what pluralism, tolerance and the spirit of openness want without which there is no “democratic society”. ”

Paradoxically, the bill, the first version of which was presented at the end of April, also plans to repeal the offense of blasphemy. Will he not however institute a new kind of blasphemy offense?

Indeed, the Scottish bill does away with the term blasphemy. However, one should not rejoice too quickly. In Scotland, as in the majority of European countries, including France, the old laws condemning blasphemy have been replaced by new laws prohibiting, depending on the country, insult, defamation, incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence because of belonging or not belonging to a religion, whether it is an individual or a group.

The sanction of insult, defamation, incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence which initially protected the individual is being extended to groups. An archaic principle that does not speak its name.

While everyone will agree that individuals must be protected, the extension of this same law to the group renews an archaic principle which does not speak its name. As it is no longer possible to speak of transgression of the sacred in secularized societies, communities of belief or conviction have adopted the language of modernity and have forged the concept of “offending believers”.

As the democratic debate turned out to be impossible between the religious argument (the prohibition of blasphemy) and the secular argument (freedom of expression), it was transformed into a systemic debate opposing two human rights: the protection of 'others or protection of the feelings of others on the one hand, freedom of expression on the other. And voila! This is exactly what you call "a new kind of blasphemy" .

No one dares to confront groups and associations that put pressure on the legislator or the judge.

The problem is that this travesty is now so deeply rooted in people's minds that no one dares to confront groups and associations that put pressure on the legislator or the judge to remind them that blasphemy, from its origins and a fortiori in a pluralist democratic society is a victimless crime.

In your opinion, what limits should be placed on freedom of expression?

Each human person must of course have the right to respect for his honor and his name. For the rest, the limit can only be internal. A concern for civility and decency, combining attention and courtesy. But without sacrificing irreverence, which is also part of the mind.

Source: lefigaro

All news articles on 2020-08-14

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-27T16:45:54.081Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.