香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "丹麥漫畫事件：問題不在言論自由和宗教信仰的取捨"

Christian Magazine Editor apologized for publishing the cartoon

http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=21843

"The editor of the small Christian weekly "Magazinet", Vebjoern Selbekk, at a press conference on Friday apologized for his decision to publish a facsimile of the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten."

Would the local Christians, may one day do the same for publishing offensive (and I would call it hatred-filled) materials?

回XOX

好，也許是時候讓大家冷靜一下，再作思考。

Thoughts I would respond to that

But decided not to fall into the temptation of answering an attention-seeking-poster.

I value my time too much.

Quote from this poster previous post: "That's why you have to explain to me, not evade my questions"

No one need to explain anything to this poster if he/she refused to look up the most basic information for himself/herself. This is not called "evading of questions", but a saving of time. Poorly put questions don't deserve any answer.

感謝

"In the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights requires States parties to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitment to discrimination, hostiality or violcne."

以上是XOX說的（暫且假設是正確）。

這其實正是我想XOX及麥當勞看看的。

從上面的例子，我們可以知道，即使在國際的法律建制內，言論自由也不是沒有底線的。

XOX提了一個不錯的提議：讓回教徒告上法庭吧。

這個提議包含至少兩個可能性：（一）丹麥的回教徒在地區法庭（包括丹麥法庭及歐盟法庭）告該丹麥報章。（二）回教國家在國際法庭告該報。

我比較懷疑兩點的可行性，因為以上的Convenant，不具法律的約束力（如果具約束力，那美國應該可以拘捕金正日了）。所以回教國家以至丹麥的回教徒不能以此為據，控告該報。

撇開可行性不談（因為非我討論重點），返回是次討論的重點。

我一直強調，言論自由即使是在最「自由」的西方社會，也是有底線的。以上的Convenant便是明證，明證在於它顯示了底線包括了宗教挑釁。

感謝XOX提供此佐證。

Limitation for Freedom of Expression (if there is any)

Just reading up some more on the incident. (And not fall into the temptation to answer one poster who like to sidetrick discussion in order to get attention.)

If we have an universal declaration of Human Rights that declared Freedom of Expression is an universal Human Rights, is there any universal standard on limitation.

Sort of.

I think those who are more familar of the ICCPR and CERD could explain further the limitation of Freedom of Expression in the case of advocacate of hatred and/or discrimination.

In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires States parties to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

Denmark has ratified ICCPR and has obligation.

Is the cartoon in question, advocate of national, racial or religious hatred?

Who could decide?

Why not look closer? The European Convention also has similar prohibitation. The European Court of Human Rights has handled similar case.

I repect freedom of expression, and the freedom to protest as a reaction to the cartoon that the Islamic community found so offensive.

Why don't the Islamic community take Denmark to court? Wouldn't that be a better way?

Response to attenton-seeking -"student"

I would say it again.

"You have demand attention from me that I'm not that willing to give."

Unless....

there is some real rational discussion, or a show of willing to participate in a civil discussion on your part without resort to annoying, fight-picking provocation.

不要引一句不引一句

（以下是對XOX12:14PM回應的回覆）

XOX：

不要引一句不引一句。

我現下將我那段整段抄出，讓其它讀者自行分析我的意思：

"（五）包容是主觀的概念。比方說，從文化A的角度出發，文化B可能很不包容，反之亦然。舉例，我上面指出，香港人比很多其它國家的包容度較高，因為我是香港人，所以我這樣覺得。但如果此話聽在香港的菲嫞或南亞族裔的居民耳中，可能覺得錯得離譜。同理，外交政策雜誌是西方的，他們做的問卷可能帶有偏見。"

還有，根據我對原文的解讀，所謂的measuring 'ruler' 包含幾個方面，女性參政和同性戀方面只是其中兩項：

//發現中東幾個回教國家的人民對於個人自由 — 尤其是在女性參政和同性戀方面 — 最不包容。//

你又怎知在其它你看不到的比較項目上，香港不是勝過中東諸國？

再講，即使本地有些宗教團體公開評擊同性戀，假設這些所謂攻擊是「不包容」，那最多我們只可以說那些宗教團體不包容，我們怎能得出你以下的結論？

"From the lack of representation of women participating in the political arena, to the openly gay-bashing-materials published by the local Christians community, we could draw the conclusion that Hong Kong people seriously lack tolerance in areas that could be comparable to the Middle-East."

快，快返回討論重點吧！

Stop fighting the straw men XOX

（以下是我對XOX 9:36am的回應的回覆）

XOX：

你說這些都是政治正確的說話，有誰在這裡反對呢？（Universal Rights to Free Expression 我直情舉腳贊成）

快回到我們的討論重點吧。

那就是什麼是合理(valid)的理由去限制言論自由？

(you said that "freedom of expression should be hold up in such a high standard that no limitation should be put to it without a valid reason."

meaning: freedom of expression can be limited with a valid reason)

請返回我們一直討論開的例子（歧視，特別是歧視傷殘人士），免得你又投訴我過份模糊（vague）。在這個例子上，我特別問了你四條問題（有括號的），請針對性地回答。

最後我要強調，任何討論必然包含問與答，沒有問與答的不是討論，而是自言自語，或者是罵街。如果你拒絕回答，我也沒興趣和你再討論下去——不，是自言自語下去。

還有，一個討論是否理性，關鍵不在於其中一方是否明白對方，而是在於雙方能否以理服人，在於有沒有接受對方批評的氣度（人身攻擊是沒氣度的表現，對我來說）。事實上，如果大家完全明白對方，那根本沒有討論的必要。

以上一段，是我看完你以下兩句得出的感覺：

"No we are not having a reasonable discussion.

You failed to understand the basic concept of discrimination."

Tolerance and Intolerance

IT is one thing good about freedom of expression, everyone has the right to express whatever bias they have, and twisted what other people posted to further their own bias.

Take for example, from the article quoted.

////根據一些學者的研究，在民主國家，人民的政治包容、文化包容的程度，普遍相對較高。黎安友教授及人稱中國民調專家的史天建在一九九三年，曾在內地進行調查，發現中國人的包容度甚低；二 ○ ○ 三年，外交政策雜誌刊登了另一項調查，發現中東幾個回教國家的人民對於個人自由 — 尤其是在女性參政和同性戀方面 — 最不包容。//

And someone jumped in and tried to further his point.

//舉例，我上面指出，香港人比很多其它國家的包容度較高，因為我是香港人，所以我這樣覺得。//

What is the problem? There is none except that using the same measuring 'ruler' to measure tolerance of Hong Kong people and that from the Middle East, it may come up with the same result.

發現 {香港人} 民對於個人自由 — 尤其是在女性參政和同性戀方面 — 最不包容。//

From the lack of representation of women participating in the political arena, to the openly gay-bashing-materials published by the local Christians community, we could draw the conclusion that Hong Kong people seriously lack tolerance in areas that could be comparable to the Middle-East.

Just a thought?

If most of Hong Kong people are opposed to the "gay-bashing-publications" from the hatred-filled-local-Christians, it actually show Hong Kong people are quite tolerance and allow a great deal of freedom of speech (even if it is borderline hate speech.

Unfortunately, the reaction is more like an attitude of "indifference" toward these bias materials.

謝謝錢恨少

錢恨少：

感謝你的轉貼。有幾點回應。先說我贊同的。

我贊同的：

（一）冷戰結束後，回教文明與基督教文明之爭，取締了社會主義與資本主義之爭。

（二）民族主義是現今獨裁者唯一的意識形態武器（因為共產主義已沒落）

幾點我認為大家應該注意的：

（一）雖然崔先生兩次指出政治及經濟問題，才是是次漫畫事件的主因，但他主要討論了政治問題（即缺乏民主導致低包容度），他在經濟的分析上著墨很少。

（二）我懷疑民主是導致高包容的主因。比方說，伊朗在多方面已算是民主國家（人民可以自由投票更換領袖，而選舉舞幣的情況並不顯著）。但你也可以說在多方面來看他們並不包容。印尼的情況一樣。

（三）經濟的發展似乎更能解釋包容度的高低。舉例，香港和星加圾也沒有民主，但至少對於我們來說，我們的包容度比很多非民主國家也高。

（四）不過，經濟發展也不能解釋一切。日本有高度的經濟發展，但他們的社會也有很不包容的群體（例如極右組織，他們的民族主義絕不低於中國的憤青）。日本的例子反映出，包容度的高低也可能受國家的民族多元度所影響。

（五）包容是主觀的概念。比方說，從文化A的角度出發，文化B可能很不包容，反之亦然。舉例，我上面指出，香港人比很多其它國家的包容度較高，因為我是香港人，所以我這樣覺得。但如果此話聽在香港的菲嫞或南亞族裔的居民耳中，可能覺得錯得離譜。同理，外交政策雜誌是西方的，他們做的問卷可能帶有偏見。

（六）崔先生提到「公民享受公平待遇和保護少數人的利益，是民主社會的基本原則。」這點我不贊同。你可以說「公民享受公平待遇和保護少數人的利益，是民主社會的理想。」但若說這是民主社會的「基本原則」則有問題。民主，只是一個少數服從多數的機制（基本原則），它並不一定保證少數人的利益得到保護。舉例，瑞士的女性及至七十年代中也沒有投票權（注意：若果女性佔人口的一半，他們已不算是少數了），盡管那時瑞士已經實行了很長時間的「民主」。

（七）崔先生又提到「家徒四壁又接受嚴謹的伊斯蘭教育，參與回教聖戰是nothing to lose」。但以我所知，這是一個錯覺。美國的一些政治學學者做過調查，發現發動自殺式襲擊的人士（恐怖分子？）一般不是窮人，而是教育程度高、較富裕的一群。這例子再突顯了問題的複雜性。

（八）包容度是會變的。在歐洲所謂包容度高的國家，經濟好的時候，對少數族裔包容度便高些，但當經濟差時便又少些。最顯著的例子是法國。零二年的法國總統大選，極右民族主義者Le Pen打著反少數族裔的旗號（他的其中一個競選口號是「3 Million Unemployment, 3 Million Immigrants. Draw your own conclusion. 」），竟拿了接近五分一的選票，位列第二最高票。

最後想作少少澄清。

激烈的討論往往令討論的焦點模糊，原因是雙方都努力嘗試找出對方的各種不是，以至戰線拉長。而戰線拉長後，有時令雙方也忘記對方的主要論點，甚至令雙方攻擊另一方根本沒有說過的東西。有見及此，我想作一點澄清：

（一）我並不覺得回教的宗教尊嚴高於言論自由（但不表示我覺得後者高於前者）。

（二）我反對以暴力解決宗教衝突。

（三）我由第一篇開始已強調，是次事件的關鍵（至少是我看的焦點）並非兩個文化區，或兩國的衝突，而是一之國之內的衝突該如何解決。因為在這個國家主權至上的世界裡，兩國的衝突已有解決方法，要麼就各說各話（如中國抗議小泉參拜靖國神社，美國抗議中國的人權狀況等），要麼就開戰，而後者的出現機會，在現在的世界中已很微（比較歷史其它階段）。

（四）我從來反對「任意地」限制言論自由。

Universal Rights to Free Expression

Universal?

Yeap. Universeal Declaration on Human Rights:

Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.

But what about unwelcoming speech and publication?

Well, many may find Christian material offensive as it describe most non-Christian religions as related to the Devil, and all non-Christians would "burn in hell".

Some may even consider most Christian materials hatred-filled. But they would not go as far as to ban it, because they do tolerate other people religion. But not as far as not to 'poke fun' of it. As long as you don't advocate to do "harm" (hate crime), it is being tolerated.

包容, as the previous post has mentioned, is the key to deal with any 'expression' that may be offenisve to some people. How the society deal with such materials, show how well people could tolerate each other.

Many (and I could go as far as saying almost all) people have "hot botton", and how we deal with issues when our botton is being pushed, is our extend of tolerance for different (and sometimes offensive) opinions.

好耐冇玩

剪貼:-

漫畫風波非單純文化問題
崔偉恆　香港教育學院專任導師

丹麥報章刊登了穆斯林先知穆罕默德為主題的十二幅漫畫，被指涉嫌褻瀆回教，在歐洲引發軒然大波。有論者引用亨庭頓（ Samuel P. Huntington ）極富爭議性的著作 — 《文明的衝突》中的論點，來說明事件，歸咎文化原因為這次基督教與回教之間衝突的緣由。筆者認為文化因素只是表面，始終中東的政治經濟問題才是最主要的。
根據一些學者的研究，在民主國家，人民的政治包容、文化包容的程度，普遍相對較高。黎安友教授及人稱中國民調專家的史天建在一九九三年，曾在內地進行調查，發現中國人的包容度甚低；二 ○ ○ 三年，外交政策雜誌刊登了另一項調查，發現中東幾個回教國家的人民對於個人自由 — 尤其是在女性參政和同性戀方面 — 最不包容。

人民包容度較低
公民享受公平待遇和保護少數人的利益，是民主社會的基本原則。中國和中東某些國家的人民包容度較低似乎不是偶然。非民主國家的政治經濟結構及其教育政策，才是令這些地方滋長極端主義溫床的原因。
冷戰結束後，回教文明與基督教文明之爭，取締了社會主義與資本主義之爭。回教文明乘蘇聯解體後的真空，大肆向中亞地區以至巴爾幹半島的回教輻射區擴展影響力，其中又以伊朗及沙地阿拉伯最為活躍。由於沙地阿拉伯皇室的認受性維繫於向內、向外宣揚瓦哈比（ Wahhabi ）的回教教義，以宗教來補償其脆弱不堪的世俗政權；因此，為了向國民、教士會議交代，沙地政府不理美國政府的反對，在九十年代中期，外交承認阿富汗塔利班政權。

以教育招攬戰士
此外，沙地政府透過財政資助，鼓勵國內的非政府組織到其他相對落後的回教地區設立清真寺，提供教育及其他社會服務。這些清真寺提供無償服務的背後原因，是為了宣揚瓦哈比 — 公元三世紀以來一個遜尼派支派，一般被視為較嚴謹和激進；拉登兄弟就曾經是沙地國內一個瓦哈比主要教派的領袖。
由於中亞和巴爾幹半島的政府無力提供教育等基本服務，清真寺就好像港英時期的教會一樣，成為窮人的避風港及教育提供者。這些清真寺的教育課程，除了簡單的語言及數學等現代教育的基本課程外，大部份時間要學生背誦可蘭經、聆聽教士講道。有理由相信，這些清真寺是招攬回教聖戰戰士的溫床，家徒四壁又接受嚴謹的伊斯蘭教育，參與回教聖戰是 nothing to lose ，況且還有薪水領。回教世界的新一代比他們的上一代還要保守，對宗教更狂熱，包容度更低。教育可能是一個主因。

民族主義的禍害
在中國，我們沒有宗教狂熱，但是有一樣狂熱的民族主義。中山大學哲學系教授袁偉時較早前在《冰點》雜誌發表文章，激起了千重浪。他指中國新一代在現時的歷史課程學習，等於是吃狼奶長大。跟中東的回教新一代一樣不包容。
今天中國新一代開口閉口以「小日本」稱呼日本、九一一時慶祝「老美被炸」，這些都不是孤立的事件。
中國政府的認受性，在社會主義的理想破滅後，現時只有民族主義一個選擇，歷史課程丟棄了階級為綱的意識形態，卻由民族主義取而代之。現時的歷史教育，可否讓學生學會包容？可否認識人人享受公平待遇和保護少數人的利益？與世界接軌？盼望中國當局看到今次在中東的宗教風波，重新檢視中國的歷史教育。

That's why you have to explain to me, not evade my questions

"No one answer your question, because your question is too vague and inspecific to give it a proper answer."

First, a vague question can also be a relevant question (unless you can prove the otherwise) and hence that my question was vague provides no VALID reason to defend your evasion.

Second, it is not uncommon that one may use vague questions as a guide to help another person reason and reach a solid conclusion.

Third, my questions were very specific. In fact, I tried to be so specific that I, for fear that you misread my message again, even went so far as to set up a hypothetical example, so that you can answer specifically (which, fortunately, you did, but not fully, as you twisted my example).

Fourth, if I did not get what you (as a discussant) mean, it is your responsibility to answer my questions so that I can get your points. Just like no teacher should refuse to answer students questions because they do not get it (and I am Student).

I am glad that you followed up on my question. Now we have some basis to proceed.

By the way, how come you twisted my example? I specifically addressed the disabled, but then you changed it to "workplace discriminations."

But okay, since I am willing to give in as much as I can in order for us to search for the truth, I can take your example (and tentatively discard mine) about discrimination at workplaces.

You said, "if there is a worker being affected by this [my (verbal) discrimination], you have created a hostile working environment could complained against you and dealed with you on the proper department (HR, your boss etc.)."

First, we are dealing with legal discriminations here, not standards on customer service. So if my act constitutes a legal offense (verbal discrimination), it should be handled by the court, not by some department in a company.

Second, in order for me to fully understand the concept of discrimination, could you please explain what you mean by "affected by this" and "hostile working environment?"

I think these are essential (not only relevant) questions because the person who is being accused on discrimination charges may contest that his or her act neither affects the plaintiff (in any negative way) nor creates an hostile working environment.

So (1) how should we (society at large) define "affect" and "hostility?"

(2) How should we (society at large) judge on the terms of discrimination?

To put it another way, (3) how can a "damage done" be proven in the context of this example? Can you give some possible proofs to illustrate?

(4) Is there any objective standard to draw a fine line between discriminatory and non-discriminatory acts (or between discriminations and simply being rude)?

Finally, I agree that our discussion is not quite reasonable. But to a large extent it is because you failed to observe the proper manner as a discussant, i.e. resorting to personal commenting (like I am the "lazy person" who refuses to do the necessary homework, "pretended to be smart," etc).

Let me remind you that using personal accusations in a public discussion would only make one look irresponsible.

That said, you, of course, have the right, in the name of freedom of expression, to be irresponsible.

p.s. Another friendly reminder. You are perfectly free to join or leave this discussion. I am not begging for your attention here. Rather, if I have anything to beg for, that would be a reasonable and responsible reply.

Student, you really didn't get it

No we are not having a reasonable discussion.

You failed to understand the basic concept of discrimination.

If you have discriminatory 'comic' posted at work, be it against Islamic faith or disable perseon, if there is a worker being affected by this, you have created a hostile working environment could complained against you and dealed with you on the proper department (HR, your boss etc.)

If you have been rude to a person of a Islamic faith or a disable person in a public place, you are being rude, but the complaints against you have to prove the person to provide evidence of "damage" in order to place claim against you in the appropriate division within the government, if there are already anti-discrimination legislations in place.

This comic, as being in a very public sector, not direct to any identifiable group, those who have been affected (feel uncomfortable that such publication existed) have to prove some form of damage is done. Or this comic has insight "hatred" that lead to violence in place where there is hate speech law.

No one answer your question, because your question is too vague and inspecific to give it a proper answer.

Why don't you ask a more specific question.

Again, the above is just more two cents on what I understand on discrimination. There is no reasonable discussion between you and me. You just asked non specific question and demand attention from me that I'm not that willing to give.

I only asked for a reasonable discussion

XOX:

so are you admitting that you have violated what I think a reasonable person should do in a reasonable discussion, i.e. commenting on a personal level instead of debating on the substantial issues?

Another integral element of any reasonable discussion is that, as I mentioned a few hours ago, participants should adhere to the principle of answering the questions (not evading them).

And now, unfortunately, you are evading my question: WHO SETS THE STANDARDS (IN DEMOCRACY)?

Why evade it?

Clearly, I cannot force you to answer the question. Perhaps you think that is irrelevant. But let me ask you another question, which is based on your most recent reply (and I assume that since you mentioned it yourself, you would think that is a relevant point).

You said that "freedom of expression should be hold up in such a high standard that no limitation should be put to it without a valid reason."

So you agree that freedom of expression can be checked WITH A VALID reason.

VALID -- a very interesting adjective.

How do you decide whether a reason is valid or not? Or perhaps more relevant, how does society decide whether a reason is valid or not?

To give you an example (which I asked McDonald twice), say, I crack terrible jokes on the disabled. By law, my act (i.e. my jokes) constitutes a discrimination against the disabled. So tell me, why is discrimination against the disabled a VALID reason to limit my speech (i.e. my jokes on the disabled)? And why can discrimination against religions not be a VALID reason to limit one's speech?

*EMPHASIS* as far as I know, no one in this forum has ever declared that "to react in violence is acceptable." (I am afraid that on this point, you are fighting a straw man)