<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.13" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Perhaps an excellent
example of the ambiguity of human rights is the debat about the "freedom of
speech". Right-wing politicians claim this freedom to say very unpleasant things
about religious and ethnic groups, and then want the government to pay their
protection: Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Some even construe this right as the "right to
offend".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Don't get me wrong. I fully
support the idea that anything can be said about (the substance of) government
policy. Attacking people, and groups of people as such imho is not
permissible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Also the mistake is often
made that social norms are confused with legal norms. The "freedom of speech"
basically means that the government should not normally interfere. But there are
other norms, social norms of civilisation and decency. Thus the right to offend
is pretty nonsensical. Again, all policy *substance* may be
attacked.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>In sum, the "freedom of
speech" has been hijacked by rigyht-wing politicians, so one should be careful
to invoke it (under its name).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>reinier </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>