A free Speech Manifesto The case for absolute free speech and for the repeal of all
Repealing the anti-free speech laws of India, eg. s.153 and s.295A IPC and s66A of IT Act
Download 0.53 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2.3Unban all books and movies, etc.
- 3.History of destruction of free speech in India
2.2Repealing the anti-free speech laws of India, eg. s.153 and s.295A IPC and s66A of IT ActMy blog post. Free speech was severely restricted even in India's original Constitution. We've seen how people like Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man and Sardar Hukum Singh argued vigorously against anti-free speech provisions in the Constitution, but lost. India's commitment even to this very low level of freedom of speech was further diluted by the first amendment to the Constitution by Nehru, who panicked when he was criticised by Romesh Thapar. Coupled with the DRACONIAN BRITISH LAWS such as 153A and 295A of IPC, India had virtually no freedom of expression by the early 1950s. [See the separate analyses on this blog, e.g. this]. Court rulings after that, being influenced often by natural bigotry than any foundations of justice (particularly in the lower courts) further cost India its basic liberty of speech. [But even the highest court found all kinds of reasons to restrict speech: For the first time before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of censorship under the 1952 Act along with the Rules framed under it was challenged in the case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality within the ambit of Article 19(2) of the Constitution and added that films have to be treated separately from other forms of art and expression because a motion picture is “able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art”. At the same time it cautioned that it should be “in the interests of society”. “If the regulations venture into something which goes beyond this legitimate opening to restrictions, they can be questioned on the ground that a legitimate power is being abused." source] Today we have virtually no liberty of speech. Maybe 2 out of 10. If one's opinion is likely to be "controversial" it is either censored by a publisher or self-censored, to avoid potentially violent "retribution" by lumpens from all religious groups. Or some of these lumpens might choose to use the draconian laws (hence the gun of the state) to destroy books. The time has come to repeal all laws that reduce liberty of speech. ONLY VIOLENCE MUST BE PUNISHED. There is no freedom of speech if it does not imply a right to offend. What is "freedom of speech" worth if it is only applicable to "convenient" views? Offence to 'sentiment' cannot be punished, particularly offence to 'group' sentiment. Instead of these anti-liberty laws, we may have laws applicable only to the violence or threat of violence component of existing free speech limitations. All violence must be SEVERELY punished. Particularly violence that is in response to free speech. People should, however, be free to BUY books and destroy these privately: even in a public place. Let Muslim fanatics BUY as many copies of Satanic Verses that can be produced by Indian presses working overtime, and destroy them at private expense. Likewise for Hindus who want to buy and destroy Doniger's book. But there can be no cause to ask the state to ban any book, or to force (through law) to destroy a book. The right to non-violent free speech must be absolute. I will now compile all recent blog posts into a booklet, to be further improved and expanded, and to form the basis of a FREE SPEECH MANIFESTO for India. 2.3Unban all books and movies, etc.This will be the natural consequence of the lifting of anti- free speech laws in India. 2.4Sone Ki Chidiya reform agenda: total commitment to free speechSource: sonekichidiya.in/publications/agenda-for-change/ Don’t tell us what we can or can’t say India’s heritage is one of free speech, discourse, and tolerance. However, during British rule we lost much of it and have never recovered since. Draconian sections like s.153A and s295A of the Indian Penal Code are designed to pander to all kinds of fundamentalist views. The constitution itself does nothing much to protect free speech. As a result, Indian press freedom stands at 140th out of 179 nations in the world, a deplorable state of affairs for what should have been a proud, democratic nation. We will foster citizen’s rights to absolute free speech. We will assure ourselves, as Indians, the closest approximation to absolute freedom of speech outside of the USA, if necessary by introducing a Constitutional amendment. Speech must be free. The only restriction would relate to civil liability for libel, direct threats or incitement of violence, and reasonable restrictions on speech for appropriateness of audience (e.g. time-based limitations on TV programming). Even laws about how national symbols and flag are treated will be reviewed to bring them into consonance with freedom of speech. The rights of citizens – who express their dissent in peaceful ways – are more important and significant than the rights of a “nation” to protection of its symbols. India must be a free nation, not a nation slave to images or symbols. We will repeal any law that curtails freedom of speech (including the IPC sections cited above and laws like s.66 of the IT Act that make certain online comments an offence or permit bans and censorship). We will remove all bans on books and movies and prevent such bans from being imposed in the future. We will also examine ways to democratised broadcasting services (TV, radio) on payment of market determined fee for the relevant spectrum which is owned collectively by the people of India.
3.1India’s anti free-speech laws: How Macaulay chose to pander to crazy Indians than to insist on freedom and orderMy blog post. Macaulay, one of the greatest classical liberals and Whigs of all time was presented, while drafting the Indian Penal Code, with a choice of either moderninsing India's cultural norms or embedding them in the law, itself. He choose the latter, for reasons he explained at length, thereby feezing India to a primitive state of medieval, Islamic despotism for ever. We are now faced with the intricate problem of extracting India from its primitive anti-free speech laws. == EXTRACT from The Globalization of Blasphemy The Indian Penal Code was drafted in 1837 by the Indian Law Commission under the chairmanship of the Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. In theircommentaries, Macaulay and his fellow commissioners observed that India is “pregnant with dangers” because of a susceptibility to “religious excitement” peculiar to Muslims and Hindus. It is “a truth which needs no proof” that there are “many persons of such sensitive feelings among the higher ranks of the Natives of India” for whom “insults have as great a tendency as bodily injuries to excite violent passion.” They wrote: A person who should offer a gross insult to the Mahomedian religion in the presence of a zealous professor of that religion . . . would probably move those whom he insulted to more violent anger than if he had caused them some severe bodily hurt. Though they might have viewed a violent response to speech as an unwarranted and unacceptable breach of public order in principle, the framers adopted a model of Indian temperament that naturalized it. Judges would use their discretion to determine whether a given expression “would be likely to move a person of ordinary temper to violent passion, not just any person . . . but a person of the same habits, manners, and feelings.” The colonial authorities saw themselves as showing due regard for the sensibilities of the natives even though they did not share them: “We are legislating for them, and though we may wish that their opinions and feelings may undergo a considerable change, it is our duty, while their opinions and feelings remains unchanged, to pay as much respect to those opinions and feelings as if we partook of them.” EXTRACT from a book I found on google books (click for larger image) [Codification, Macaulay And The Indian Penal Code by Wright , Chan , Wing-Cheong Chan, Barry Wright And Stanley Yeo Wing-Cheong Chan and Barry Wright And Stanley Yeo]
Note that there is an excellent extract from this book, here. And more, here, on Macaulay's contribution to the law making systems of the world. And finally from this. Macaulay, in his commentary upon the Indian Penal Code, explicitly endorsed this interpretation of ‘hate speech’ under Indian law, observing that the principle underlying Chapter XV (prohibiting ‘offences relating to religion and caste’) is that ‘every man should be suffered to profess his own religion, and… no man should be suffered to insult the religion of another.’ The importance of ‘hate speech’ laws in the British project of maintaining stability in India (necessary for the perpetuation of colonial rule), and the extent to which the British perceived Indian colonial subjects as uniquely vulnerable to religious insults, are made clear by Macaulay’s commentary on ‘Offences Relating to Religion and Caste’ within the Indian Penal Code:
READING
Directory: Misc Misc -> Lane Cove West Public School Avalon Avenue Misc -> Elks lodges numerically Misc -> Life and letters of lord macaulay Misc -> Sunday, September 10, 2006 Misc -> Production notes Misc -> International Employment Relations Network List (iern-l) a miscellany of International Employment Relations News Misc -> By frederick stonehouse Misc -> Let us help you simplify the complex! Misc -> Request for customizations in cdr / sdmr development for 3cx phone System Version 8 and above Misc -> Last Edited: 18202517-AugMayNovJun-20087 Download 0.53 Mb. Share with your friends:
|
