True Democracy: The Right to misjudge and be misjudged, the Right to insult and be insulted, the Right to abuse and be abused....
The Right to misjudge and be misjudged, the Right to insult and be insulted, the Right to abuse and be abused, the Right to sneer and be sneered at these Rights are the foundation stones of a true Democracy remove them and theocratic or secular tyranny of a single thought will be their replacement.
‘It was one of Lincoln’s ways of working out his chief value to the country, and that value was his clear sense from the start it was our democratic scheme that was at stake, and that if it was to be saved, every citizen who could aid must help to give all that was in them.
Lincoln seems to have put it something like this to himself:
“Everybody in the country has had a part in bringing this thing about; everybody feels they have a right to say how things shall be handled; everybody that is worth their salt is going to exercise that right, and they are going to do it according to the kind of person they are – according to their temperament, their training, their self-control, their meanness, and their goodness. If we are going to put this thing through and prove that citizens can govern themselves, we must get from them what they can give, and we must let them give it in their own way.”
Source: The Life of Abraham Lincoln, Tarbell, 1917
The veracity of any argument is not dependent upon its source nor the nature of its delivery.
Limits must drawn, such as to direct calls for violence or violence itself as an inherent part of the argument, i.e. a cultural codex which justifies and authorises you either accept our view of the world or else we reserve the right to impose grievous harm or severest penalty.
Given the nature of humans even when informed by a common cultural foundation codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) their own circumstance of time and space as well as inherent genetic propensity necessarily informs a behavioral variance not an individual adherent specific nature - although it must be noted this individuals derived nature exists within (except for statistical outliers (very few persons)) a consistent constant cultural behavioral variance dictated by its cultural codex. Otherwise how could we represent ourselves belonging to any group, more importantly how could cultures function to deliver needs and wants?
Each cultural foundation codex contains a construct of Other (outside group) and women which each cultural codex determines as justified and authorised 'truth' be this religious or secular in origin. Where cultures are in contact within the Public Square these cultural 'truths' do not exist apart from cultural codex to inform cultural enforcement behavior internal and acceptance external.
The problem arises because these inter-cultural 'truths' applying to Other and women and integrally the methods of enforcement are not homogeneous nor can some cultural 'truths' ever be nor the methods of enforcement. Determining such disagreements as selective bigotry resolves the inter-cultural conflict or simply leaves the conflict to develop into burning concrete buildings, broken bodies and lives as it clearly has and is elsewhere?
As the restriction of free speech rises as represented by the inclusion of blasphemy laws which are presented as a means to stop ‘hurt’ and violence what in reality occurs? Hurt and violence, the reason being such laws justify violence against Other rather than diminish it.
Saudi activist sentenced to 10 years, 1,000 lashes for insulting Islam By Mohammed Jamjoom, CNN May 8, 2014
Increasing Violence in Pakistan Surrounding Blasphemy Cases Deters Opposition
"On Wednesday, a human rights lawyers who was defending a university lecturer accused of blasphemy was shot dead in his office in the city of Multan."
Convictions Are on the Rise This Year By ANNABEL SYMINGTON May 8, 2014 9:48 p.m. ET
"Judges who free those accused of blasphemy have been attacked and two politicians who suggested reforming the law were shot dead. Those acquitted have often been lynched."
Pakistani police charge 68 lawyers with blasphemy over protest BY SYED RAZA HASSAN
ISLAMABAD Tue May 13, 2014
Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy? PEW Research BY ANGELINA THEODOROU MAY 28, 2014
Religious Hostilities Reach Six-Year High PEW Research, JANUARY 14, 2014
Pakistani Activist Shot Dead; Aided Blasphemy Suspects NYT By WAQAR GILLANIMAY 7, 2014
"..the USCIRF paper is certainly right to stress that blasphemy laws can become a deadly weapon in the hands of an individual or faction with a personal or political grudge."
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels The Economist Mar 14th 2014, 17:20 by B.C.
PAKISTANI MOB ATTACKS MINORITY MUSLIMS, KILLS 3, AP, By ZAHEER BABAR
— Jul. 28, 2014 7:58 AM EDT
"Three people were burnt and nine injured in Gujranwala on the eve of Eid-ul-Fitr; they belonged to the Ahmedi community. All this in the disguise of blasphemy; the controversial law enacted on September 7, 1974. Pakistan became the first ever Muslim majority country in the world where an elected parliament declared a minority Muslim sect (Ahmadiyya Muslims) as infidels (or Kafir). Of late this Act has been abused and misused through the hands of half-baked mullahs of different schools of thought, venting out their frustration. Taking law into their hands and dispensation of ‘on-the-spot’ justice has further aggravated the society."
In our own backyard ABDUL ALI, THE NATION, August 02, 2014
Claims that reducing restrictions on Free speech leads to violence is to avoid facing the fact cultural foundation codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) constructs of Other and women are the real cause. Allowing such genocide constructs to go unchallenged via restrictions on selective restrictions of Free Speech leads to increasing violence and insanely as we see increasing calls for even more restriction on challenges to these cultural constructs the actual cause.
Every human being whose cognitive faculties allow is a cultural bigot. It is the nature of beings who having relinquished a nature imposed genetic determinant of species norms, necessarily find to survive requires the creation of 'their own' agreed cultural ethical constructs, pertinent to a time and space, which inform maximised security both regards internal and external threats to that survival.
Although it could be argued at the Maslows hierarchy of need there are agreed and mutually beneficial ethical norms regards the preservation of vital life force there after at the higher levels prejudice, bigotry developed in delineated time and space are manifest when those lines are partially or totally dissolved. To say bigotry is a crime is to determine all humans criminals.
It is the nature of the ethical constructs of Other and particularly women which can and should inform a heightened bigotry, though hate is no benefit, though in saying this one could argue hate is simply another name for fear and veritably justified regards certain cultural ethical constructs.
What the ABC FactCheck is proposing is selective bigotry is OK. For instance it is OK for Muslims and sympathisers to say their construct of Other and women is only right and proper and Others constructs are evil and that those who oppose these constructs are trolls, it is evil bigotry.
Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal.
This is a struggle to see who can rush to the top of the heap enforcing their own bigotry as the 'true' ethical norm and any challenge is determined as 'evil' troll bigotry.
“If slavery is right,” he said, “All words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality –its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension – its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?
“Wrong, as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here in these free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored – contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong: vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of ‘don’t care’ on a question about which all true men do care; such as Union appeals beseeching true Union Men to yield to Dis-unionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said and undo what Washington did.”
“Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.” Lincoln 1859
Any Freedom which enables Liberty to be crushed is not a good. You cannot be half slave and half free as with a culture cannot be half moderate and half extremist you are either one or the other.
"Two cases before the Supreme Court underscore the danger of allowing religious beliefs to trump other rights."
Early Warning NYT Op-Ed | Linda Greenhouse April 2, 2014
Mississippi Chefs to Protest State Law on the Eve of Annual Picnic NTY By KIM SEVERSONMAY 5, 2014
"In a collision between religious freedom and anti-discrimination policies, the student group, and its advisers, have refused to agree to the college’s demand that any student, regardless of his or her religious beliefs, should be able to run for election as a leader of any group, including the Christian association.
Similar conflicts are playing out on a handful of campuses around the country, driven by the universities’ desire to rid their campuses of bias, particularly against gay men and lesbians, but also, in the eyes of evangelicals, fueled by a discomfort in academia with conservative forms of Christianity. The universities have been emboldened to regulate religious groups by a Supreme Court ruling in 2010 that found it was constitutional for a public law school in California to deny recognition to a Christian student group that excluded gays."
Colleges and Evangelicals Collide on Bias Policy By MICHAEL PAULSONJUNE 9, 2014
“Socrates was accused of corrupting the young and ‘inventing new gods’, in other words of causing young people to critique the customs and institutions of the state and of undermining the core values of the Athenian society.
Socrates argues at his trial that a democracy such as Athens is particularly in need of someone critical and controversial: “And so, men of Athens, I am now making my defence not for my own sake, as one might imagine, but far more for yours, that you may not by condemning me err in your treatment of the gift the god gave you. For if you put me to death, you will not easily find another, who, to use a rather absurd figure, attaches himself to the city as a gadfly to a horse, which, though large and well bred, is sluggish on account of his size and needs to be aroused by stinging.” Who is on trial here, Socrates or Athenian democracy itself?”
Source: The Ship of Fools, Anja Steinbauer explains why Plato had problems with democracy. Philosophy Now March/April 2014
Socrates was defined as a 'Troll' now what does this mean for Australian 'democracy'?