I haven't written anything about the whole cartoon issue and i won't do it now but the following is a good article worth reading so I'm posting a link.
“…either we in the West believe in Freedom of Speech or we don’t. If we really have free speech then why is world-renowned historian David Irving sitting in a prison in Vienna right now facing up to 20 years imprisonment for having a dissenting opinion on some details of the Holocaust? Why was Germar Rudolf, a Chemist Doctoral Candidate, kept from receiving his degree and now sits in a dank prison meant for terrorists with a five year sentence for simply scientifically challenging some forensics of the Holocaust? Why has a pacifist Canadian, Ernst Zundel been in prison for 3 years and now faces trial in Mannheim, Germany for expressing his conscience on an historical period now over 50 years old! It should be obvious to all the fair-minded people that the pro-Israel, pro Clash of Civilizations, pro World War III cartel of media brazenly supports freedom only when it supports their own nefarious agenda, they cannot afford criticism or dissent.”–
Commentary by David Duke
Compelete artile can be read here http://www.davidduke.com/?p=493
Haal ab tak wahi hain ghareeboan kay, Din phiray hain faqat waziroan kay,her Bilawal hai Dais ka maqrooz,paoon nangay hain Benazeeroan kay.
1 comment:
Well in general there are elements of double standard when it comes to freedom of speach. I think somehow, it is not so much what is said that they question, but rather who is saying it.
When muslims use democratic means to express their dismay..they are still criticized...the act is democratic but the muslims are still questioned.
The question of David Irving... Indeed it seems like freedom of speach in their eyes is not applicable here, so one asks oneself; when is it? For certain groups of people and opinions only?
Then I reflected upon the incident and came to the following conclusion:
Let's say an influential physician or doctor goes out publicly denying mainstream research that states that HIV leads to AIDS, stating instead that it is not true.
Freedom of speach, yes to an extent but the implications of a man or woman of standing and influence (and knowledge of the field) denying something that could lead to harm, perhaps is not freedom of speach anymore.
One could perhaps draw teh same parallel with David Irving. He is not any man on the street. A respected well renowned Historian. A man in his position expressing opinions on historic matters, questioning what mainstream historians have concluded, could be similar to that of the doctor and the HIV case.
Then again, 20 years in prison seems alot. I heard it was 3 years in prison...perhaps even that is alot seeing as people have murdered people and recieved a smaller sentence in Europe.
Post a Comment