Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:01:45 AM
A right not to be offended? Atheists say ‘No thanks’
A.C. Grayling addressed the World Humanist Congress in Oxford, U.K., Friday Aug. 8, 2014.
Photo by British Humanist Association via Flickr.
Brian Pellot | Aug 12, 2014
This weekend, the World Humanist Congress [ http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/06/world-humanist-congress-oxford-will-tackle-freedom-thought-expression/ ] brought 1,000 delegates from 67 countries together in Oxford, U.K., to explore the most pressing challenges to freedom of thought and expression.
Along with their lack of religion, many delegates shared a legally protected right not to be offended in their home countries, a “privilege” they enthusiastically pledged to abandon.
Delegates passed the Oxford Declaration on Free Thought and Expression [ http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/12/whc2014-atheism-humanism-oxford-declaration-on-freedom-of-thought-and-expression-full-text/ ], which states: “There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions.” Despite the alarming fact that 47 percent of countries [ http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2013/12/19/journalists-face-religious-straitjackets-half-countries/ ] have laws penalizing blasphemy, apostasy and/or defamation of religion, there is indeed no fundamental human right not to be offended [ http://freespeechdebate.com/en/debate/the-harms-of-hate-speech-legislation/ ] in international law.
The declaration relies heavily on Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18 ], which together guarantee the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression.
The declaration’s section on the right not to be offended states:
“Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply any duty or requirement to respect those beliefs. The expression of opposition to any beliefs, including in the form of satire, ridicule or condemnation in all media and forms is vital to critical discourse and any restraint that is exercised in this expression must be in accordance of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The best response to the expression of a view we disagree with is to reply to it.Violence and censorship are never legitimate responses. All laws that criminalise language on grounds of ‘blasphemy’ or of offence to beliefs and values impede human freedom and should be abolished.”
These are important words, and I fully agree with the “We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief [ http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-7/ ]” sentiments expressed.
In his 2009 book Giving Offence, cartoonist Martin Rowson, who spoke at the congress, writes, “In the Babel of conflicting human opinions, the right to be offended is just another tactic to win an argument by compelling your opponent to shut up because what they say is offensive.” Rowson says religion is often cited in the course of this silencing.
In the companion title Taking Offence, Caspar Melville suggests that “the right to offend is part and parcel of our world, but we must choose our targets with care and know why we are doing it.”
I think that’s sound advice [ http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/11/richard-dawkins-atheist-world-humanist-congress-rape-pedophilia-oxford/ ]…
Other sections of the declaration I find particularly interesting (they’re all important) state “No one anywhere should ever be forced into or out of a belief” and “Freedom of belief is absolute but the freedom to act on a belief is not.”
Genuine belief, by its very nature, cannot and should not be forcibly applied to or deprived an individual. Governments and societies can’t make people believe something they don’t. They can only force them to pretend, which accomplishes homogeny at the expense of freedom.
Restricting one’s freedom to act on particular beliefs is obvious and necessary to protect the rights of others. If my beliefs tell me to kill you, your right to life should hopefully save the day.
You can read the full declaration here [ http://iheu.org/oxford-declaration-on-freedom-of-thought-and-expression/ (next below)].
© 2014 Religion News LLC
http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/12/whc2014-humanism-atheism-free-speech-religious-freedom-blasphemy-dawkins-iheu-bha/ [with comments]
--
Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression
Isabel Russo and Andrew Copson read the final text of the Oxford Declaration to World Humanist Congress 2014
By iheuadmin+ On 2014-08-12
The delegates at World Humanist Congress assented on 10th August and the IHEU General Assembly approved on 11th August the Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression.
Drafted and amended after contributions from delegates by the Resolutions Committee of the World Humanist Congress, the full and final text of the Oxford Declaration follows below.
The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression
The 2014 World Humanist Congress, gathered in Oxford, UK, on 8-10 August 2014, adopted the following declaration on freedom of thought and expression:
All around the world and at all times, it is freedom of thought and freedom of expression that have proved the most essential conditions for human flourishing, but every generation must face new threats to these fundamental freedoms. Knowing this, we maintain:
The right to freedom of thought and belief is one and the same right for all. The human right articulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated elsewhere is and should be a single right, indivisible, protecting the dignity and freedom of all people by protecting their right to their personal beliefs, whatever those beliefs, religious or non-religious. As Article 7 of the Declaration says, ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.’
No one anywhere should ever be forced into or out of a belief. Freedom of thought implies the right to develop, hold, examine and manifest our beliefs without coercion, and to express opinions and a worldview whether religious or non-religious, without fear of coercion. It includes the right to change our views or to reject beliefs previously held, or previously ascribed. Pressure to conform to ideologies of the state or to doctrines of religion is a tyranny. Laws that prescribe or criminalise beliefs contravene human dignity and must be abolished. Every citizen of every state has the right to demand the repeal of such laws, and all states should support those, wherever they are, who demand that their social freedoms and personal liberty be upheld.
The right to freedom of expression is global in its scope. The human right articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right to ‘seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’. No parochial nationalism or state insecurity should prevent the global human community from fulfilling the promise of our new technologies, our mass media, our social media, and our personal access to transnational networks. States should invest adequate resources to allow their citizens’ participation in this global conversation.
There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions. Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply any duty or requirement to respect those beliefs. The expression of opposition to any beliefs, including in the form of satire, ridicule or condemnation in all media and forms is vital to critical discourse and any restraint that is exercised in this expression must be in accordance of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The best response to the expression of a view we disagree with is to reply to it.Violence and censorship are never legitimate responses. All laws that criminalise language on grounds of ‘blasphemy’ or of offence to beliefs and values impede human freedom and should be abolished.
States must not restrict thought and expression merely to protect the government from criticism. States that criminalise criticism of government policies or officials as treasonous or seditious, or as threats to security, are not “strong governments” championing the best interests of the public, but censorious bullies exercising tyranny in their own interests. States should ensure in the law of the land, in their education systems, and in the conduct of their national life generally, that freedom of thought and expression are actively promoted and pursued to the real benefit of every member of society.
Freedom of belief is absolute but the freedom to act on a belief is not. As responsible members of a community we accept that our freedom to act must sometimes be restricted, if and only if our actions would undermine the rights and freedoms of others. Freedom of belief cannot legitimise overriding the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law. These balances can be hard to strike but with a focus on freedom and human dignity, we believe legislators and judiciaries can strike them in a progressive manner.
We assert the principles of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and secularism as providing the firmest foundation for the development of open societies where freedom of thought and expression will be protected and promoted.
We commit ourselves in all our work to uphold and promote existing rights to freedom of thought and expression within the international human rights framework and to resist national and international restrictions on the right of individuals to think for themselves freely and to openly express their views without fear.
We urge each of our member organizations and humanists worldwide to uphold these values in their own lives; to promote in their communities greater public understanding of the rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression for all; to urge their governments to promote these values; and to join with humanists and others globally in defending and advancing them to the benefit of all humanity.
© International Humanist and Ethical Union
http://iheu.org/oxford-declaration-on-freedom-of-thought-and-expression/ [no comments yet]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87527577 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105364277 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105393647 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105475489 and preceding and following
A.C. Grayling addressed the World Humanist Congress in Oxford, U.K., Friday Aug. 8, 2014.
Photo by British Humanist Association via Flickr.
Brian Pellot | Aug 12, 2014
This weekend, the World Humanist Congress [ http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/06/world-humanist-congress-oxford-will-tackle-freedom-thought-expression/ ] brought 1,000 delegates from 67 countries together in Oxford, U.K., to explore the most pressing challenges to freedom of thought and expression.
Along with their lack of religion, many delegates shared a legally protected right not to be offended in their home countries, a “privilege” they enthusiastically pledged to abandon.
Delegates passed the Oxford Declaration on Free Thought and Expression [ http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/12/whc2014-atheism-humanism-oxford-declaration-on-freedom-of-thought-and-expression-full-text/ ], which states: “There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions.” Despite the alarming fact that 47 percent of countries [ http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2013/12/19/journalists-face-religious-straitjackets-half-countries/ ] have laws penalizing blasphemy, apostasy and/or defamation of religion, there is indeed no fundamental human right not to be offended [ http://freespeechdebate.com/en/debate/the-harms-of-hate-speech-legislation/ ] in international law.
The declaration relies heavily on Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18 ], which together guarantee the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression.
The declaration’s section on the right not to be offended states:
“Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply any duty or requirement to respect those beliefs. The expression of opposition to any beliefs, including in the form of satire, ridicule or condemnation in all media and forms is vital to critical discourse and any restraint that is exercised in this expression must be in accordance of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The best response to the expression of a view we disagree with is to reply to it.Violence and censorship are never legitimate responses. All laws that criminalise language on grounds of ‘blasphemy’ or of offence to beliefs and values impede human freedom and should be abolished.”
These are important words, and I fully agree with the “We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief [ http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-7/ ]” sentiments expressed.
In his 2009 book Giving Offence, cartoonist Martin Rowson, who spoke at the congress, writes, “In the Babel of conflicting human opinions, the right to be offended is just another tactic to win an argument by compelling your opponent to shut up because what they say is offensive.” Rowson says religion is often cited in the course of this silencing.
In the companion title Taking Offence, Caspar Melville suggests that “the right to offend is part and parcel of our world, but we must choose our targets with care and know why we are doing it.”
I think that’s sound advice [ http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/11/richard-dawkins-atheist-world-humanist-congress-rape-pedophilia-oxford/ ]…
Other sections of the declaration I find particularly interesting (they’re all important) state “No one anywhere should ever be forced into or out of a belief” and “Freedom of belief is absolute but the freedom to act on a belief is not.”
Genuine belief, by its very nature, cannot and should not be forcibly applied to or deprived an individual. Governments and societies can’t make people believe something they don’t. They can only force them to pretend, which accomplishes homogeny at the expense of freedom.
Restricting one’s freedom to act on particular beliefs is obvious and necessary to protect the rights of others. If my beliefs tell me to kill you, your right to life should hopefully save the day.
You can read the full declaration here [ http://iheu.org/oxford-declaration-on-freedom-of-thought-and-expression/ (next below)].
© 2014 Religion News LLC
http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2014/08/12/whc2014-humanism-atheism-free-speech-religious-freedom-blasphemy-dawkins-iheu-bha/ [with comments]
--
Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression
Isabel Russo and Andrew Copson read the final text of the Oxford Declaration to World Humanist Congress 2014
By iheuadmin+ On 2014-08-12
The delegates at World Humanist Congress assented on 10th August and the IHEU General Assembly approved on 11th August the Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression.
Drafted and amended after contributions from delegates by the Resolutions Committee of the World Humanist Congress, the full and final text of the Oxford Declaration follows below.
The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression
The 2014 World Humanist Congress, gathered in Oxford, UK, on 8-10 August 2014, adopted the following declaration on freedom of thought and expression:
All around the world and at all times, it is freedom of thought and freedom of expression that have proved the most essential conditions for human flourishing, but every generation must face new threats to these fundamental freedoms. Knowing this, we maintain:
The right to freedom of thought and belief is one and the same right for all. The human right articulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated elsewhere is and should be a single right, indivisible, protecting the dignity and freedom of all people by protecting their right to their personal beliefs, whatever those beliefs, religious or non-religious. As Article 7 of the Declaration says, ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.’
No one anywhere should ever be forced into or out of a belief. Freedom of thought implies the right to develop, hold, examine and manifest our beliefs without coercion, and to express opinions and a worldview whether religious or non-religious, without fear of coercion. It includes the right to change our views or to reject beliefs previously held, or previously ascribed. Pressure to conform to ideologies of the state or to doctrines of religion is a tyranny. Laws that prescribe or criminalise beliefs contravene human dignity and must be abolished. Every citizen of every state has the right to demand the repeal of such laws, and all states should support those, wherever they are, who demand that their social freedoms and personal liberty be upheld.
The right to freedom of expression is global in its scope. The human right articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right to ‘seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’. No parochial nationalism or state insecurity should prevent the global human community from fulfilling the promise of our new technologies, our mass media, our social media, and our personal access to transnational networks. States should invest adequate resources to allow their citizens’ participation in this global conversation.
There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions. Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply any duty or requirement to respect those beliefs. The expression of opposition to any beliefs, including in the form of satire, ridicule or condemnation in all media and forms is vital to critical discourse and any restraint that is exercised in this expression must be in accordance of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The best response to the expression of a view we disagree with is to reply to it.Violence and censorship are never legitimate responses. All laws that criminalise language on grounds of ‘blasphemy’ or of offence to beliefs and values impede human freedom and should be abolished.
States must not restrict thought and expression merely to protect the government from criticism. States that criminalise criticism of government policies or officials as treasonous or seditious, or as threats to security, are not “strong governments” championing the best interests of the public, but censorious bullies exercising tyranny in their own interests. States should ensure in the law of the land, in their education systems, and in the conduct of their national life generally, that freedom of thought and expression are actively promoted and pursued to the real benefit of every member of society.
Freedom of belief is absolute but the freedom to act on a belief is not. As responsible members of a community we accept that our freedom to act must sometimes be restricted, if and only if our actions would undermine the rights and freedoms of others. Freedom of belief cannot legitimise overriding the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law. These balances can be hard to strike but with a focus on freedom and human dignity, we believe legislators and judiciaries can strike them in a progressive manner.
We assert the principles of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and secularism as providing the firmest foundation for the development of open societies where freedom of thought and expression will be protected and promoted.
We commit ourselves in all our work to uphold and promote existing rights to freedom of thought and expression within the international human rights framework and to resist national and international restrictions on the right of individuals to think for themselves freely and to openly express their views without fear.
We urge each of our member organizations and humanists worldwide to uphold these values in their own lives; to promote in their communities greater public understanding of the rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression for all; to urge their governments to promote these values; and to join with humanists and others globally in defending and advancing them to the benefit of all humanity.
© International Humanist and Ethical Union
http://iheu.org/oxford-declaration-on-freedom-of-thought-and-expression/ [no comments yet]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87527577 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105364277 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105393647 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105475489 and preceding and following
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
