0  0

My comment wasn’t really written as an attack on your efforts. I wrote it more in the hope that some people might read it and realize that there are alternatives.

Good luck and congratulations on the day!

0  0

The text you object to is a Constitutional article which is beyond our power to currently change, though we realise and recognise that although laws should not be crossed, they could least be tested and challenged.

One step at a time, for the general good.

0  0

I understand the reasons behind the wish to establish such a code of conduct but, having read the text several times, it looks to me more like an attempt to confirm the already existing guidelines for freedom of speech and not so much a code of ethics relating to hate speech that differs from already existing laws and guide lines.

As with all other documents of this type, the real test of its value and feasibility lies in the interpretation of phrases and single words. Who is to determine what will be considered “hate speech”, “promoting division”, “national unity”, “sectarianism”, “fair”, etc. etc.?

I am particularly worried about the inclusion of this part:

….rules and conditions laid down by law, provided that the fundamental beliefs of Islamic doctrine are not infringed, the unity of the people is not prejudiced, and discord or sectarianism is not aroused.”

A text like that is wide open to interpretation and can be used/abused to suit any purpose. It does not, in my opinion, contribute to establishing an environment of genuine freedom of speech or openness.

Aren’t religious divisions behind most “hate speeches”? If religious subjects cannot be debated freely, including the freedom to doubt and not believe, how will you ever get to the point where they can be debated without “promoting division” and “arousing sectarianism”?

0  0

0  0

0  0

0  0

0  0

0  0

0  0