There are two key human rights values in this confrontation:
[1] The freedom of expression ─ basic, but not alone in the world;
[2] The freedom from insult-hurt-harm ─ basic, nor alone in the world.
Conflicts between two values-goals-actors have five outcomes:
A- The freedom of expression prevails, regardless of insult-hurt-harm to respect for other humans and their dignity. This happens now, as a result of the anti-Islamic Youtube video and the Hebdo article.
Comment: This does not justify violence to property and humans, but nonviolent reactions against governments that protect individuals against libel, and Judaism-Christianity, but not Islam. The problem is not what certain governments have done but what they have not done, not acts of commission, but of omission. Forms of boycott till states improve the situation, and international conferences, are called for.
B- The respect for dignity of a religion prevails, and as a result there is silence when anything pertaining to a religion is involved.
Comment: Unacceptable, making it possible to hide/reject anything political under the cover of sensitivities bordering on the sacred.
C- Neither expression, nor respect-dignity, but non-verbal violence; prejudice (attitudinal) and discrimination (behavioral), not verbal.
Comment: Unacceptable, freedom of expression has to prevent this.
D- Compromise, moderate freedom of expression for moderate insults.
Comment: No solution to anything, but very frequent.
E- Both freedom of expression and respect for dignity. But how?
Comment: By drawing a (fuzzy) line between the secular-political and the sacred-religious; like in political debates between the public and the private person. Of subjects of expression a constructive, not destructive intent is demanded, and of objects of expression that they are not hiding their politics under a cloak of sensitive sacredness.
The video combines intent to hurt and no hidden politics. Unacceptable.
Johan Galtung
28 September 2012
