There is no freedom that belongs to a collective; all freedoms belong to individuals. For example, Hindus or Jains or Muslims as a collective, own no rights, only individual Hindus, Jains or Muslim own rights. The adage, ‘Your freedom ends where my nose begins’ governs the freedom of expression and its many nuances.
I am free to write whatever I wish to and you are free to ignore it. However, I cannot place anything I wish on a public hoarding, because that infringes upon your right to enjoy public spaces without being assailed with the unpleasant writing. But you cannot ban my book, because that is not being forced upon you. One has to make a conscious decision to read it by buying it or borrowing it from a library. I cannot ban your movie, an artistic work, for I am free not to watch it. I make a conscious decision to buy a ticket to watch it. However, if the offensive movie were being screened in a public square, I might object to it on grounds that it assails my senses in a profoundly offensive way and prevents me from peacefully enjoying public spaces. I cannot call for a ban on an artist’s paintings, because I am free to ignore them or not walk to a venue to see them.
My food or clothing should not be a cause for objection from anyone. Whether a person eats beef or only vegetables, is no one else’s business. My freedom however, cannot claim the right to slaughter animals in public, because with that, I infringe upon another citizen’s right to not be assailed with the sight of what he may consider cruelty. Animals are therefore slaughtered in licensed abattoirs.
Every belief, including a belief in angels, Allah, gnomes, elves, Krishna, Christ and Batman is entitled to tolerance. No belief, including belief in any religion, is entitled to respect. If you flaunt your belief in public, you should and most probably will be subjected to ridicule by those that do not respect it. To hold a belief is your right. To expect respect for your belief is not. Therefore, if a belief is dear to me and I am eager to flaunt it in public, I should be ready to face disrespect for it. The right to offend is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the right to free expression. The freedom of expression cannot exist without the right to offend.
This brings us to offensive speech. Offensive speech is self regulating. If in my circle of acquaintances there is a habitual user of offensive speech, he will soon lose my friendship and if his speech is offensive to most others, their friendship too. But we cannot by law, curtail his offensive speech. Speech offenders on my Facebook wall are simply blocked. Note, I have not taken away his right to offend; I have removed myself from his offensive speech. He is still free to offend. Over time, the offender may find himself bereft of friends.
It is your right to enjoy pornography in video, pictorial or written form as long as you do not offend another’s sensibilities by forcing them to partake of your choice of reading or watching videos.
No cult or religious outfit can claim the right to play anything publicly on a loudspeaker, because the loudspeaker assails the senses of others, who have no way of avoiding the sensation of sound in public spaces. Therefore, playing a loudspeaker is violation of another’s freedom to enjoy peace and quiet, but a book containing offensive literature against a religion, should not be proscribed because it leaves everyone the freedom to ignore it, as no one can be forced to read the offensive literature. Similarly, a painting or a cartoon in a publication that you buy to read, cannot be proscribed, though you can object to the same work being displayed on a hoarding in public, because there it assails your senses in your right to enjoy public spaces.
Hate speech should similarly not be curtailed, as long as it does not assail my senses in public. If the transmission of hate speech via loudspeaker from across the road, prevents me from enjoying the peace and quiet of my home, the speech should be proscribed. But if the conduct of hate speech is within an auditorium full of people who like to hear that sort of talk, there should be no proscription over the speech. I, as an objector to such speech, have the absolute right to avoid such a venue and not listen to such a speech. Do understand however, that an incitement to murder or other crime, during such speech, for example, would no longer remain just a hate speech but would become a crime under most legal jurisdictions.
Several legal jurisdictions, notably the United States of America, Canada, Denmark and Australia, extend the freedom of expression to even desecrating their national flag. Those nations consider their flag large enough to protect even those who seek to burn or trample it.
Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amrinder Singh’s attempt to make blasphemy punishable with a life term, is an extremely regressive step and will result in a nation moving surely towards the religious savagery we have been witness to in the Middle East, over the past three or four decades. Instead of strengthening laws providing cover to religions, we must move towards repealing Sec 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The Punjab move should and will certainly be challenged in the Supreme Court. We cannot allow India to descend into religious barbarism.
(Rajiv Tyagi is a former MiG-21 fighter pilot and an opinion maker on social media)
