'People do not have the right not to be offended'
Published: 29 April, 2009, 09:39
Edited: 18 April, 2010, 20:32
TAGS: Scandal, Interview, Hate crimes, Europe, Human rights
People have to accept being offended from time to time in modern democratic times and, in fact, people do not have a right not to be offended.
Mr. Fleming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, which provoked a huge international controversy, has spoken exclusively with RT about the matter of tolerance in the modern world and explained why he approved the publication of the images.
He explains that we now live in a globalized world, different from before, where information travels very quickly and our societies are getting more complex in terms of religion and ethnicity. So as a newspaper, he explains, it is right to express this, otherwise we will end up in a situation when a newspaper will not be able to publish not only cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, but also any number of things that could be deemed ‘offensive’ to people’s sensibilities.
29.04.2009, 01:45
1 comment
Is Ukraine’s NATO policy dead?The Ukrainian government is no longer interested in joining NATO, according to a leading expert on the country’s foreign policy. |
29.04.2009, 10:42
Afghanistan is the key to Russia-NATO relationsThe future of Afghanistan and the whole Central Asian region is on the agenda of Russia-NATO cooperation because stability in neighbouring Iran and Pakistan is under question. |
"People have to accept being offended from time to time in modern democratic times and, in fact, people do not have a right not to be offended." Hear Hear! Not only that, from day to day I expect to be offended, if we are not offended how can we expect to learn or gain education from experience, I want to meet the person that has never been offended. that's the person I want to meet, what a comedy that would be! after the initial sting of the offending comment one realizes that there are elements of truth to even the most emotional of overreactions, the trick is to find out what is constructive and what is emotion, then take what you like from the experience.
Charlie - I think it is quite in order for you to throw down the gauntlet to Fleming Rose, it is basically asking him, to put his money where is mouth is. However, logically he does not need to answer, because in free speech, he has no duty to be balanced in his publication, he can basically publish what he likes. Indeed, the onus is on you to find an outlet, to represent your views, and provided, such an outlet exists, then you really can't complain. Free speech is different to impartiality. The problem is, that such outlets do not exist in some places. This can be for many reasons, legal afronts to free speech, as in your previous example of punishing holocaust denial, state cencorship, or commercial pressures. It is these attacks on free speech, that we must attack ourselves, to allow people to be able to speak freely, and articulate their views, regardless of how unsavoury they are to some listeners. We should actually defend Fleming Rose's freedom of speech and project our own rights of free speech in parallel.
I am awaiting a response to Charlie's question. If we are so open-minded, how come the Holocaust and Zionism are off limits?