Sacred Dogmas Of Free Society

A reaction on the publishing of the Prophet's cartoons and the irresponsible Journalism.

Man has always desired to be free. Free in every sense. We would like to have liberty of movement, the liberty to live the way we choose, or what we say or see. We desire to be free in the most important things of life to the least important things like "what should I wear today?".

But how free can we get? or how free are we now? The answer to these questions to some extent depends on where are you reading this article from. A person in China might complain about restrictions on access to certain information. India is the largest democracy in the world, but a 20 year youth cannot marry as the law restricts citizen below 21 from doing so. In Germany, one would face penalty to showcase Nazi Swastika symbols. Even though it is a kind of common good-luck symbol for many in my country India. In fact this symbol has been there since 3000 B.C. When Prince Harry of England wore the Swastika symbol in some costume party, the European Union lawmakers wanted to enact a law to ban wearing the symbol across Europe.So maybe, very soon Europeans will have one less choice for their costume parties.

Even pinoeers of democracy like England are not totally free. Most of the residents there cannot, by law, ever become the Monarch of England. Okay, this may be a crazy desire, but since we are on the subject of Liberty in a free society, I am giving instances which goes to prove that there is no such thing like Total Freedom (to do or desire anything).

When we live in a society we are bound by many social restrictions and laws, even if that society claims itself to be a beacon of freedom. And hence we don't see any free society, east or west, which is also free from laws or restrictions which governs the actions of its citizens.

Yes, we Modern men and women are definitely not free to insult others, and we are not at liberty to defame or spread religious hatred under the disguise of Free Speech. And it is all the more wrong trying to stereotype a race, a culture or a community with unchecked and free editorials.

When there are laws and restrictions even for trivial things, how can the Free Press get a clean chit for their every action? How can they not be governed by editorial rules and guidelines?

If a Driver can't be irresponsible for his driving, how can Journalists, Novelists and Publishers get away from their hatred-inticing acts which have potential to play havoc? And that is what we are seeing it right now. With the publication of such culturally insensitive cartoons by the Danish newspaper, there is even less peace now in the already fragile world. To many these cartoons may not have been a big deal, and yes I would have agreed with you on this had this Danish Newspaper recognize their stupidity and apologized for the same. But this Danish Agency and the Denmark government chose to ignore the plea of ambassadors of many nations, as if entertaining their few thousand citizens with silly cartoons is more important than the feelings of millions of people that these ambassadors represented.

And then we have a French news paper, republishing these cartoons. Though this is a third-grade agency in financial difficulties and which could surely get a huge publicity and sales with such an act. Of course, all this is in the name of Free Speech - the license to kill and still run your business.

We have the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Rasmussen saying "Neither the Danish government nor the Danish nation as such can be held responsible for drawings published in a Danish newspaper," after meeting with Muslim envoys in Copenhagen.

Will he say the same thing if his mainstream news agencies starts publishing Porn? Or better still, if his own compromising pictures are published. Mr. Prime Minister would surely file a defamation case. The Muslim reaction around the world is a case against this defamation.

Free Press would have been a good thing had not Journalists shunned away their social responsibilities in the name of Editorial Liberty.

And to those who still think that free editorials are harmless or Publishers can publish anything and still be not responsible for that, let me tell you then a very personal experience. In 1992 and 1993, there were major riots in India. Thousands of people lost their lives and properties worth billions was destroyed. This was in the aftermath of the demolition of an ancient Mosque in North India. The riots were so wide spread that they affected almost every city and town of India. But more than this demolition act of a religious place, the maverick journalism publishing front page pictures of mobs breaking the mosque was what fueled the riots throughout India. People were incited not by the news of the demolition but through seeing it live and the pictures circulating in every house. It was my strong opinion, that had there been a judicious censorship of news reporting during this time, riots would have been contained, thousands of lives would have been saved from reckless massacres, and for thousands their homes would have been left unharmed.

But then we are living in these free societies, which have created their own dogma of fear and to speak against them has become taboo.