Don't mix up the "freedom of speech" and "moral",they are 2 different things, the former is a right, and the latter is the introspection of humanity. If you are speaking the bottomline of freedom, you have to rethink what freedom is. President Bush and Chirac used a better word "responsibility", which is more concrete.

It is not the problem of majority or minority, it is about the respect towards other's culture. If one civilization always poses a patronizing gesture over the others, there is not reciprocal respect at all, and not dialogue can be made.But don't abuse the term "hegemony" please, it is too serious to use it in this case.

這是回應 babapaya 的.

言論自由是可以以道德限制之, 但是, 如果其限制理由不清晰, 或其限制方式與限制目的不成比例, 那就是侵犯人權, 侵犯社會和諧的基礎.

保護兒童是可接受的理由.
保護社會不能知悉沒有大屠殺的證據, 並不是可接受的理由.
保護殘障人士的尊嚴是可接受的理由(我們要注意其殘障不是單憑意志便可改變的事實).
保護不同膚色世系的尊嚴是可接受的理由(我們要注意其膚色世系不是單憑意志便可改變的事實).
保護神佛先知並不是可接受的理由.

以上情況都不存在灰色地帶.

I still think that this has been an excuse for the Muslim societies to protest against the western countries, esp. the silly Bushy group.

Posting out somebody's comments has never meant agreeing with it, for most mass media, or at least they deny the responsibilities. So, just because such comments or 'products' are against somebody else's beliefs, they can't post it out? If so, no newspaper should exist and not any single piece of news could be published in the world.

At least for me now, the Egypt thing (the horrible car accident) should not be mentioned again in this way. I don't care how dangerous it is to drive in Egypt, and I don't want to know the backgrounds of the unfortunate sufferers. For me, and I believe, tons of people like me, the bloody photos (not only of this news, but of everything) have offended us seriously. So? Should we arrange a protest against these offensive pictures? And how about the offensive critiques?

I do agree that the Muslims (or anybody) have their rights to voice out their objections against what they find offensive, just it doesn't make it the best way to resolve such a problem by burning somebody's office and home, nor by prohibiting newspapers (or anything) from publishing or creating any material which may offend anybody.

Most importantly, what is wrong with the governments? I mean, if TVB had done something offensive to the Japanese, should the offended Japanese burn down the Chinese embassy in Japan? Or, more rationally and logically, should they write to complain about TVB? It is a matter of order and the correct approach.

Remarks: I repeat, I am not commenting on the comics, but the whole situation as from what I can see. Please tell me if you know that they have really used all better and easier ways already before taking all these extreme actions.

小西：

請問兩者為何不對等？

babapaya:

So what freedom is? What is introspection of humanity? What is responsibility?

If the majority decides not to respect a minority culture in the name of freedom, how would you respond? To use an example to illustrate my point, if the majority of a country pass a legislation that outlaw child porns - insofar as the children come from the majority group (i.e. minority children are not protected under this law), do you think the majority respect the minority? And if, after the legislation, some publishing house decides to make profit by publishing child porns out of the minority's children in the name of freedom of press, what do you think?

What I am highlighting is a fundamental problem of democracy - how to reconcile majority and minority interests? In democracy, where it is the majority that rules, there always exists a possibility of "the tyranny of the majority."

麥當勞：

以下是我的逐點回應。

第一，首先要看你如何定義公民權利。每個國家也有立法保障一定程度的公民權利。但「一定程度」是指到什麼程度呢？是誰定那「一定程度」的呢？答案是統治者所界定的。在獨裁國家，統治者可能是個人，可能是一小撮人，而在民主國家，統治者便是國家的大多數人（民主的底蘊就是少數服從多數）。獨裁的情況不講，現在只談民主國家。大多數人的「一定程度」不代表少眾的「一定程度」。如果某民主國家因為宗教關系，立法禁止食用豬肉，該立法得到通過（可能在議會內、也可以透過全民公投），而如果我是該國的公民但沒有大多數人的信仰，那此立法是否侵犯我的公民權利呢？或者又換個詞，不是禁豬肉，而是狗肉——我相信很多國家也有此限——那這立法是否剝奪了吃狗肉者的公民權利？

第二，又用child porns的例子，如果某國有人出版一本兒童色情雜誌，你看不過眼，你告他，然後法庭裁定出版人勝訴，因為他有出版自由（即表達言論的自由的一種），然後法官在判詞中再說，閱讀此刊物者不是社會的大多數人，所以他的判決不屬多數人的暴政。你會如何看？

我想指出的是，「多數人的暴政」（the tyranny of the majority）不一定要多數人的參與，有時只要多數人的默許，已足夠構成。即使參與食狗肉的人很少，但只要在民主制度下大家不通過禁食狗肉的法（即多數人允許其存在），那已構成「多數人的暴政」（當然，前題是食狗肉等於「多數人的暴政」，你可以不同意此前題，但你可以用其它例子取代「食狗肉」，例如兒童色情）

黃毓民的例子並非是好例子，因為一，香港並非民主，二，事件只牽涉個人，而非一個群體。如果香港舉行公投，規定所有姓黃的人都得在公眾場合中封嘴，那就更切合我想探討的「多數人利益VS少數人利益」的主題了。

法國的例子我完全不知，故不便評論。

第三，「把神佛作為漫畫的諷刺嘲笑, 事實是很常見而廣為接受的」

兩個問題：一，什麼是「廣為接受」？二，「廣為接受」是否等同正確？

可能在香港、在西方社會，這是廣為接受的。但在回教國家可不是「廣為接受」。這是第一個問題。

還有我想問，是否在西方「廣為接受」的前題下，這就等同正確呢？引伸一步去想，是否西方認為正確，便放諸四海而皆可呢？

第四，「我們不可以基於別人的身體殘障而嘲笑別人, 這是違法」

為什麼你贊同以上的立法呢？事實上我也贊同。但假設我不贊同，那你根據什麼來限制我嘲笑身體殘障者的自由呢？

因為要保護弱勢社群（即身體殘障者）的個人尊嚴？那如果該名身體殘障者視其信仰高於個人尊嚴（即他情願你嘲笑他殘廢也不要嘲笑他的上帝），那麼我們為什麼不可保護其宗教尊嚴呢？

第五，「他們只視耶穌為其中一個先知, 而不是神的兒子, 這在基督教的眼中又不是抵毀耶穌嗎?」

這是個非常好的問題。如何化解此衝突，每個國家也可能不同。如果是發生在回教國家，那回教的大多數得想想是否需要有什麼方法避免基督徒的少數覺得自己受侵害，從而避免激化宗教衝突。但無論如何，這還是一個「多數人利益vs少數人利益」的取捨問題。

第六，「不容許宗教被抵毀, 就沒有社會和諧的空間, 那只是虛假的董建華式和諧. 」

首先我懷疑你是否打多了個「不」字。

其次我不清楚你所說的「董建華式和諧」指什麼。如果那大概是指「不聽反對聲音便等於沒有反對聲音（即和諧）」，那我想此比喻不太合現在的討論。

為什麼？那得從「反對聲音」的源頭作分析。

董建華的情況，出於少數人的聲音（即政府及權貴）凌駕多數人的聲音。在此情況下，「反對聲音」就是社會的大多數。故此，董的情況是缺乏民主。

但在丹麥漫畫事件中，問題剛好相反，是多數人的聲音（即多數人的所謂言論自由的權利）凌駕了少數人的聲音（即少數人的宗教尊嚴）。在此情況下，「反對聲音」就是社會的少數。故此，這並非是否缺乏民主的問題，而是民主政制本身的問題（民主絕非一種完美的制度）。

即是，是否在民主的前題下（即少數服從多數），多數就可以置少數的利益於不顧？

最後，我強調，民主的運作很簡單，就是少數服從多數，不存在灰色地帶。但「多數人利益VS少數人利益」的取捨上，情況便複雜得多。每個社群也可能得到不同的共識，有些社會可能傾向維護多數人的利益，有些則較重視保護少數人的利益，很難說那一種是對或錯，而每個社會不同的取態又很大程度關乎該社會的歷史和種族構成。例如，如果社會經歷過嚴重的種族衝突，可能會更重視種族和諧，因此制定政策時更小心，不能單靠「民主」、「自由」這些大字便置少數族群於不顧。這是很多經歷種族屠殺的非洲國家的經驗。

當然，我亦想強調，一個社會不能完全照顧到所有少數人的利益。還有，什麼才算少數呢？我一家算不算少數？沒有可能叫政府特別優待我一家，對不？這個我完全清楚。但這更突顯了問題的複雜性。不過，複雜不表示不能解決。有些原則是可以參考的。例如，數量及程度。

數量：「少數」究竟有幾少？

程度：一個多數人的決定究竟對該少數有多大的侵害？

這是永恆的矛盾....愈自由的地方這個矛盾愈大....如歐美....但亦正這類自由地區是人類思想的火車頭....唯有在這類地區這類問題才這樣大....但亦是這類地區的偉大之處...亦唯有在自由地區才有解決的可能.....

應該留意歐洲穆斯林的睇法...佢地才係歐洲的一部分....希望佢地在思想身份認同和價值觀上殺出一條血路...成為歐洲文化的貢獻....

小西：

我同意「暴政」一詞很強，但不見得不恰當。首先這個「多數人的暴政」(the tyranny of the majority)是有其歷史背景(應該由Alexis de Tocqueville於十九世紀初所創)，流傳至今，用法某程度上已是約定俗成，為慣用語（在討論民主的缺陷時），「暴政」的強度是淡化了，反而著重表達「凌駕小眾」的意思。

此外，「暴政」是否用過火，很關乎受害人的主觀感受。比方說，社會的大多數可能覺得「社會在尊重少數人利益上程度不算太高」，但那社會的少數可能覺得社會的多數非常不尊重少數的權利。在主觀上，少數可能覺得那是暴政。

什麼是工具理性？什麼是價值理性？

「少數人可以是社會上的強勢，反之亦然。majority與minority之別，是以權力來分的，而非人數。」

問題是權力本身是以人數來分的——如果大家只談政體的話（即撇開經濟）。比方說，獨裁就是讓少數人統治多數人。而民主（理論上）就是讓多數人統治少數人。

我贊同公義是很複雜的概念，至少難有共識，所以我一直以來也不敢說怎樣照顧少眾利益才算合理（或公義）。我只想大家明白民主的限度，它只是少數服從多數的一個機制，但少數服從多數不一定表示就能達到公義。

「把宗教歸入有關利益的討論，似乎有薑蔥屈鯉的味道。」

為什麼？願聞其詳。

如是聽聞*,丹麥當局要求所有新移民皆得學習丹麥語,考試合格才能取得公民資格.
如是聽聞,在丹麥,當你懂丹麥語,在公共場合便不可再說其他語言,否則根據某civil regulation你當受罰.
如是聽聞,漫畫在去年九月刊登後得到西歐多國如英,法,德媒體的轉載.輾轉至今.
如是聽聞,伊斯蘭世界的強烈反應是丹麥伊斯蘭移民團體向母國lobby的結果.
放在西方聯軍入侵伊拉克,各國公審叙利亞,合攻伊朗這樣的背境下,這次伊斯蘭世界的反應又豈止是一幅漫畫所能致?又豈能只是宗教自由與言論自由之爭?
*bbc.co.uk/worldservice

如果大家都相信言論自由與平等機會都是人權, 那麼, 一個人的人權也是人權, 一個人的平等機會被侵犯也是人權侵犯, 一個人的言論自由侵犯也是人權侵犯. 當然, 平等機會的空氣不止於香港已立法的性別, 家庭崗位與殘障的三個範圍, 是應至少包括種族, 信仰及性傾向的範圍.

這個從來都不是數量問題, 公義不等於誰的利益較大. 換句話說, 問題是把原則劃在哪裡. 這裡不是動物農莊, 適用與宗教聖人的原則必然也適用於被神道教尊重的戰爭陣亡者, 不可以推說在*宗教信仰*層面回教的先知比日本的戰犯更加神聖. 我亦不只再三說明, 在耶教vs回教, 多數vs少數的論述上, 自由信仰根本是缺席, 因為不論耶教還是回教都重視聖人, 那麼聖人該被尊重的奴隸思維就被更加加強起來, 好像說任何一個主要宗教等同暴力就濫用言論自由.

麥當勞：

什麼是公義？

我真的希望有人可以為公義下一個客觀的定義。

以下是我之前對小西的回應：「我贊同公義是很複雜的概念，至少難有共識，所以我一直以來也不敢說怎樣照顧少眾利益才算合理（或公義）。」

為什麼我這樣說？

因為很多情況下公義是具爭議性的。比方說，遞進式稅率是否合付公義？有錢人很可能覺得那是不公義的，因為政府沒有權「奪取」他們的勞動成果，但對窮人來說，不向富人抽重稅才是不公義，因為富人享用社會的資源（例如健全的法制保障其私產），而在這些社會條件下發達，所以他們要回報社會。

注意：我在說「很多情況」，不是所有情況。現代社會在某些方面，已達到共識，並產生一些所謂的普世價值。例如，奴隸制度是不公義的，這個相信極少人反對（不過如何定義奴隸又充滿爭議，例如西方的婦解份子覺得穆斯林女性活得像奴隸，但穆斯林女性自己反而可能覺得性開放的西方女性，是物慾的奴隸）。

我想以上可以回應你的觀點：「這個從來都不是數量問題, 公義不等於誰的利益較大. 換句話說, 問題是把原則劃在哪裡」

進一步說，所謂的原則是誰定的？是上帝嗎？事實上，回顧歷史，所謂的原則（或對公義的定義），不單因社會不同而有異，而且更因時間的不同而產生不同的原則（即使在如美國的民主大國，奴隸制還是在百多年前才正式取消）。

「這裡不是動物農莊, 適用與宗教聖人的原則必然也適用於被神道教尊重的戰爭陣亡者, 不可以推說在*宗教信仰*層面回教的先知比日本的戰犯更加神聖.」

我覺得很有趣，你一而再的用神道教的例子，彷佛有人（如我）曾自相矛盾地藐視過此教。其它人我不知道，但至少對我來說，我絕對沒有在此問題上自相矛盾過。

其實，如果你有細讀我之前的回應，你應該知道我在神道教問題上的取態。首先，在這個國家主權至上的時代（這是事實，不表示我贊同），外國沒有權干預（不表示不應）某國的內政（中共常用的語句），所以小泉去不去靖國神社不須要向鄰國負責（當然鄰國可以抗議，甚至有理由去抗議）。小泉要負責的對象，是日本的國民。假若日本的民眾反對，小泉作為一個民選的領袖當然要順應民意（理論上他不順民意也行，但他只會在來屆選舉落敗）。問題是如果普遍日本民眾支持小泉參拜靖國神社，那他國也無可奈何。

不過，日本也有很龐大的韓裔、華裔的少數族群（不計非法入境者），如果他們反對小泉參拜靖國神社，那麼我認為小泉該三思。雖然他可能有日本多數人的支持，但是否有多數人的支持便可不顧少數族裔的感受呢？這又回到那「多數人的利益v.少數人的利益」的問題上了。

我不知道「聖人該被尊重」是否「奴隸思維」，但我見到歷史上很多暴力、霸權，都是在「解放奴隸思維」之名下進行的（至少布殊和拉登都在用相同的話語）。

我想，現在的問題不是「聖人是否該受尊重」，而是「少數的意見（特別是異見）是否該受尊重」。

麥當勞，我之前向你提了許多問題，你很多也沒有回應。但至少也回一回今次的問題：什麼是公義？A所認為公義是否必然等同B所認為的？

麥當勞：

你沒有回應我的問題：什麼是公義？A所認為公義是否必然等同B所認為的？

以下我會重點回應你的質詢。不過我認為是重點的，不一定就是你認為的。所以，如果我漏答了一些你覺得重要的，請指出，我必然再另行回答。

我想你沒有弄明白我的意思。其實我的意思（或「總論據」？）很簡單，那就是所謂的原則很大程度上是人定的，而不同人有不同的定義，既然不同的社群有不同的原則，我們要小心處理它們，它們之間很多時存在矛盾，所以不要武斷某些價值才可叫原則（如言論自由），但另外一些價值又不能叫原則（如宗教尊嚴）。

而你和我相反，你說：「任何言論自由的限制，其理由都必須明確，其限制手段亦必須與其理由成比例．若果你同意這個原則，而你又要提出言論自由應予限制，就需要有你的理由，這些理由不可以是計算人數或利益的方程式，而且可經客觀驗證的限制理由」

聽上去很有道理，但想深一層又發現大有問題。

第一，什麼是「成比例」？如何才算成比例？誰決定/量度那比例？

第二，如何能夠「客觀驗證」？什麼是客觀？客觀是否意味不會時而勢易？如果是，你就不可以說「不需要考慮普世價值會否時而勢易」。如果不是，那客觀又有什麼意思？

其次，公義此概念，由於本身只是個概念，如何可以「客觀驗證」？

如果你要我認同你，你必須（一）回答以上幾條問題，然後（二）客觀驗證言論自由不應受宗教尊嚴限制。

我並不認為你找到我矛盾處。如有，請你詳加解釋。

不過我倒覺得你有矛盾的地方。現下指出。

你說此一句：「冒犯回教先知的漫畫根本沒有限制回教徒的宗教行為權利」

對極了。但你也說過：「我們不可以基於別人的身體殘障而嘲笑別人, 這是違法」我想問，即使我在口頭上侮辱了傷殘人士（即嘲笑），但我的嘲笑有限制他們的行為權利嗎？這是否自相矛盾了？我想你有你的解釋，請詳述。

希望你能仔細回應以上種種問題，那將有利把我們的焦點（及分歧）收窄。

麥當勞：

「公義」 by definition當然是指「公眾」，而非「私人」。這個我懂。但這只是字典上的定義。而我問題的重點當然並非這樣簡單。我要問的是，公義所謂的「公」是誰定的？

很簡單舉個例（事實上此例我已用過，但你沒有回答我），遞進式稅率是否合付公義？

還有，你沒有回答另外一個很重要的問題，什麼是客觀？你能客觀地說明遞進式稅率合符（或不合符）公義嗎？

所以當我看到你以下此句時，我感到很詑異：「公義一詞的含意是客觀的」。你既沒有好好定義「公義」，也沒有好好定義「客觀」，就此說這句話，所以令我覺得有點教條主義（即「我不用解釋，你聽我便成」）。當然，我認為教條主義不利理性討論。

我現在回答你的問題。我認為公義是可能存在的（正如你問我美女是否可能存在的，我也會說可以）。

再回你以下的提問：「如果我們容許道德的相對主義，那麼討論就變成不可能：為什麼言論自由就可以受限制，而宗教尊嚴就不可受限制呢？你是不是要以一套價值觀全面壓倒另一個價值觀呢？」

首先我不明白為什麼「如果我們容許道德的相對主義，那麼討論就變成不可能」，請詳解。第二，如果你細閱我之前的回應，你便知道我從來沒有說「言論自由就可以受限制，而宗教尊嚴就不可受限制」。

舉兩句我說過的話：

「單是法國已有五百萬伊斯蘭教徒，是該國人口的8%。那8%的人口該不該受到尊重？我沒有答案。」

「我贊同公義是很複雜的概念，至少難有共識，所以我一直以來也不敢說怎樣照顧少眾利益才算合理（或公義）。」

第二句的「少眾利益」暗示/包含了「宗教尊嚴」。

所以我絕對沒有「以一套價值觀全面壓倒另一個價值觀」，反而我覺得你有此傾向。

你又說「道德相對主義更弊的地方是不能解決紛爭，例如在丹麥道德可接受的中東不一定可接受，相反中東的行為亦嚴重侵犯丹麥的神聖符號．訴緒道德相對主義根本無法解決以上分歧」

我又不太同意，第一，解決不了兩國之間的道德分歧不一定會出現什麼問題。比如說，大陸的人權標淮和美國的不一樣（道德上的分歧），但我又看不到因此會出現很大（或很逼切）的國際危機。第二，如我所述，在現今國家主權至上的世界裡，以上的分歧其實已有解決辦法，那就是丹麥幹什麼不到中東管，反之亦然。因此，是否有「道德相對主義」並無關痛癢。

但無論如何，國與國之爭其實非我探討的重點，我想說的是一國之內之爭（多數利益和少數利益之爭），這不是「國家主權至上」可以解決的問題。

你又說「言論自由只可被明確的理由所限制，及限制手段與理由須成正比，是確保言論自由免受任意限制的必要條件」

我不得不說，你又再一次錯讀我的意思，我幾時有說過可以「任意」限制言論自由？如果你有細看我對你的第一篇回覆，你應該知道我認為制定政策時應小心（即非任意），而所謂政策，根據文意便是指「在什麼程度下限制言論」。

我不認同「客觀…是量度上的詞語」，在字典裡找不到答案。你告訴我吧。我想的問題是，即便是如此，那量度是誰定的？

你沒有為你的矛盾點（我認為的）辯護，現下再引述我上次的提問：你說此一句：「冒犯回教先知的漫畫根本沒有限制回教徒的宗教行為權利」對極了。但你也說過：「我們不可以基於別人的身體殘障而嘲笑別人, 這是違法」我想問，即使我在口頭上侮辱了傷殘人士（即嘲笑），但我的嘲笑有限制他們的行為權利嗎？這是否自相矛盾了？

你不回答，是否默認了自己的矛盾？

XOX:

Are you suggesting that I am not a "reasonable person?"

If yes, please explain why you think so.

By the way, I would not take that comment as a form of hate-speech. Nor would I find it too uncomfortable. Just curious, and a bit disappointed, that how a rational discussion would lapse into such personal-level commenting, which is definitely not what I think a *reasonable* discussant should do.

But you did make an interesting point: "The cartoon in question, by the standard of hate speech law, is not insighting hatred toward a particular group, and would be allowed even if it make someone 'uncomfortable'."

Let me ask you, if you are willing to make a "reasonable" reply: who sets up those hate-speech law (and the standards)? And with what reason can you say that those comic strips are not insighting [sic] hatred toward a particular group?

By the way, just a friendly reminder. You are definitely not the only one here who gets what 麥當勞 said. I also got what he said. But I want him to confront with some potential problems (or possibly inconsistencies) in his arguments.

Also by the way, no one (reasonable or not) is "required," at any rate, to make any explanation here.

Thanks for your clarification, which makes me feel better (or less discouraged in continuing this discussion), as I know that I am talking to a reasonable discussant.

My previous reply to you is more than a request for a clarification on your use of "reasonable person." I also asked you the following,

"But you did make an interesting point: "The cartoon in question, by the standard of hate speech law, is not insighting hatred toward a particular group, and would be allowed even if it make someone 'uncomfortable'."

Let me ask you, if you are willing to make a "reasonable" reply: who sets up those hate-speech law (and the standards)? And with what reason can you say that those comic strips are not insighting [sic] hatred toward a particular group?"

My questions constitute an integral part of the current discussion (not on the side point about personal commenting). For this reason, I hope you will answer them.

By the way, I want to emphasize that if the bottomline is to have a reasonable discussion, I think we should adhere to the principle of answering the questions (not evading them). I have to contest that 麥當勞's reply is far from enough for any "resonable person" who aspires to conduct a reasonable discussion because he has not duly answered my questions yet (and I am surprised that you say that his reply is enough).

XOX:

I assume that you value laws, or strictly speaking, modern laws in the West. Then I suggest that you should also appreciate the modern Western legal philosophy, which puts a great deal of emphasis on careful reading and precise interpretation (of legal provisions). And in the current discussion, I am afraid to say that you fail on this score, however dearly you hold laws.

Why?

Because I never asked, "WHAT ARE THOSE STANDARDS?" Rather, I asked, "WHO SETS THOSE STANDARDS?"

So, please answer the question, "WHO SETS THOSE STANDARDS?"

A further question, "by what principles do those law-makers set those standards?"

In case you mis-read my message again, let me tell you why I ask the above questions. The reason is to help you take one step back: before taking the existing (hate-speech) laws for granted, I hope you can understand the political aspect of law-making.

By the way, I start to realize how you fail to understand my criticisms on the insufficiency of McDonald's replies (I do not exclude other possibilities that may (mis)lead you to the current position, however).

Please read carefully and think carefully. This is the basis for any reasonable discussion.

XOX:

From your response, I have to say that you took my questions at a face value at best, and misread them at worst.

Let me put the question again, "WHO SETS THOSE STANDARDS?"

For any careful reader, he or she should not interpret the question as "How could a law come to pass in any country?"

Let me state that (unnecessarily) explicitly. I am not asking the institutional details of passing a law in parliaments (by the way, I have a basic knowledge about the details in democracy. Broadly speaking, there are two types of democracy: presidential and parliamentary. To pass a bill, in a parliamentary system, a bill is proposed by the executive and is voted on the legislative floor, while in a presidential system, it is the parliament (aka the Assembly in France and Congress in the US) who proposes and votes on it, but the president has a veto power over any bill passed in the parliament). Rather, I am asking, "who are the law-makers?"

I posted questions in order to force you to think. Nevertheless, I did MORE than just posting questions. The following is what I wrote on Feb 6, which illuminates the motivation of my questions for you:

第一，首先要看你如界定義公民權利。每個國家也有立法保障一定程度的公民權利。但「一定程度」是指到什麼程度呢？是誰定那「一定程度」的呢？答案是統治者所界定的。在獨裁國家，統治者可能是個人，可能是一小撮人，而在民主國家，統治者便是國家的大多數人（民主的底蘊就是少數服從多數）。獨裁的情況不講，現在只談民主國家。大多數人的「一定程度」不代表少眾的「一定程度」。如果某民主國家因為宗教關系，立法禁止食用豬肉，該立法得到通過（可能在議會內、也可以透過全民公投），而如果我是該國的公民但沒有大多數人的信仰，那此立法是否侵犯我的公民權利呢？或者又換個詞，不是禁豬肉，而是狗肉——我相信很多國家也有此限——那這立法是否剝奪了吃狗肉者的公民權利？

So if law-making in democracy means no more than passing regulations with the approval by the majority citizens, how can we ensure that the law is just (or specifically, just to the minority who may oppose the passage of the law, but nevetheless lose in a democratic voting)?

So that goes back to my question(s) for McDonald, who, like you, holds a rather rigid (and objective) view on the definition of justice.

I hope you can have some patience to digest this response.

Finally,

"It is more like a person who didn't do the homowork, and keep throwing up "questions" to pretend to be "smart".

Is it a personal-level commenting?

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)

"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.

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.

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.

（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！

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?

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.

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?