Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Insult?

In the first incident, the UK’s royal family launched a multinational battle to halt the spread of topless photos of, Kate Middletown, the wife of Prince William, the second heir to the throne.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were holidaying in Provence, southern France at a chateau owned by Lord Linley, the Queen's nephew, last week, when an unknown photographer took several pictures of them sunbathing and soaking up the sun on the balcony of a 19th-century hunting lodge, oblivious to lurking paparazzi.

They launched legal proceedings in France against celebrity magazine ‘Closer’ which published photographs of the duchess sunbathing topless.

In Ireland, where an Irish daily published the photos, a bid was launched to introduce privacy laws on the back of the scandal.

Alan Shatter, Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, took the dramatic decision to revive an abandoned legislation to put more value on people’s right to privacy.

Shatter said “the lives of public personalities and private individuals are detrimentally affected by the actions of some papers”?.

"It seems that no value of any nature is attached to an individual's right to privacy," he said.

Even, Prime Minister David Cameron’s official spokesman reacted to the incident saying “The view from Downing Street is that they are entitled to their privacy”?.

But, the second incident, which triggered furious response from among the British Muslim community and the whole world, was the shocking release of a blasphemous video insulting the Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the United States.

The screening of the U.S.-made movie was described as a true representative of the West’s hostility towards Muslims and Islam.

Muslims in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kashmir, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Gaza, Morocco, Syria, Kuwait, Nigeria, Kenya, Australia, Britain, the United States, France, Belgium, and some other countries held protest gatherings to condemn the blasphemous film.

However, the UK government stopped short of condemning the blasphemous video, with its foreign secretary William Hague only saying that the film was “contemptible”?.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair added salt to Muslims’ injuries by dismissing the anti-Islam film as “laughable”?. Instead, he criticized the Muslims reacting to desecration of their sanctities and called on governments around the world to stand up to protesters.

"The film, it may be wrong and offensive, but it’s also laughable as a piece of film-making. And what I’m afraid is very dangerous and actually is very wrong is the reaction to it”?, said Tony Blair.

The hypocrisy and double standards displayed by British officials become more obvious when they show indifference towards an insulting piece of work, which harms the feelings of almost 2 billion people around the world, and try to define it in the framework of so-called freedom of expression, not freedom of insult, but at the same time make hue and cry over the photographs of an individual being published in the newspapers and magazines with the purpose of financial benefit.

Actually, the UK policies, in particular, and the West policies, in general, vis-à-vis Islam and Muslim nations are characterized by arrogance, ignorance, naivety and disregard of consequences.

In France, the royal couple won a legal challenge to have nude photos of the Duchess of Cambridge be banned from further publication and for Closer magazine to hand over all their copies of the snaps.

A day later, also in France, a magazine pours oil on the fiery debate between freedom of expression and offensive provocation by publishing blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Now, the question is “isn’t it a systematic attempt to trigger chaos and cause mayhem”? by mixing freedom of speech and freedom of insult?

The End
Source: PressTV

In the first incident, the UK’s royal family launched a multinational battle to halt the spread of topless photos of, Kate Middletown, the wife of Prince William, the second heir to the throne. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were holidaying in Provence, southern France at a chateau owned by Lord Linley, the Queen's nephew, last week, when an unknown photographer took several pictures of them sunbathing and soaking up the sun on the balcony of a 19th-century hunting lodge, oblivious to lurking paparazzi. They launched legal proceedings in France against celebrity magazine ‘Closer’ which published photographs of the duchess sunbathing topless. In Ireland, where an Irish daily published the photos, a bid was launched to introduce privacy laws on the back of the scandal. Alan Shatter, Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, took the dramatic decision to revive an abandoned legislation to put more value on people’s right to privacy. Shatter said “the lives of public personalities and private individuals are detrimentally affected by the actions of some papers”?. "It seems that no value of any nature is attached to an individual's right to privacy," he said. Even, Prime Minister David Cameron’s official spokesman reacted to the incident saying “The view from Downing Street is that they are entitled to their privacy”?. But, the second incident, which triggered furious response from among the British Muslim community and the whole world, was the shocking release of a blasphemous video insulting the Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the United States. The screening of the U.S.-made movie was described as a true representative of the West’s hostility towards Muslims and Islam. Muslims in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kashmir, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Gaza, Morocco, Syria, Kuwait, Nigeria, Kenya, Australia, Britain, the United States, France, Belgium, and some other countries held protest gatherings to condemn the blasphemous film. However, the UK government stopped short of condemning the blasphemous video, with its foreign secretary William Hague only saying that the film was “contemptible”?. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair added salt to Muslims’ injuries by dismissing the anti-Islam film as “laughable”?. Instead, he criticized the Muslims reacting to desecration of their sanctities and called on governments around the world to stand up to protesters. "The film, it may be wrong and offensive, but it’s also laughable as a piece of film-making. And what I’m afraid is very dangerous and actually is very wrong is the reaction to it”?, said Tony Blair. The hypocrisy and double standards displayed by British officials become more obvious when they show indifference towards an insulting piece of work, which harms the feelings of almost 2 billion people around the world, and try to define it in the framework of so-called freedom of expression, not freedom of insult, but at the same time make hue and cry over the photographs of an individual being published in the newspapers and magazines with the purpose of financial benefit. Actually, the UK policies, in particular, and the West policies, in general, vis-à-vis Islam and Muslim nations are characterized by arrogance, ignorance, naivety and disregard of consequences. In France, the royal couple won a legal challenge to have nude photos of the Duchess of Cambridge be banned from further publication and for Closer magazine to hand over all their copies of the snaps. A day later, also in France, a magazine pours oil on the fiery debate between freedom of expression and offensive provocation by publishing blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Now, the question is “isn’t it a systematic attempt to trigger chaos and cause mayhem”? by mixing freedom of speech and freedom of insult? The End Source: PressTV