Section 14

The New Zealand Herald reported today that Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims were upset with the use of the word “tolerance” in the Human Rights Commission’s Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity, wanting something more - respect and understanding.

Leave aside the question of why we need a National Statement on Religious Diversity - I guess it gives the clipboard-wielders something to fill their days. If we’re going to have such a thing, what should it offer?

The document (Word .doc, 25 kB) begins with some fluff but the meat is in the guidelines. They start off well by assuring us that New Zealand has no state religion and that freedom of religion is to be upheld. Of more concern is

4. The Right of Freedom of Expression

The right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press are vital for democracy, but shall be exercised with responsibility and in an informed manner.

According to the Human Rights Commission, I do not have the right to express myself unless I express myself “with responsibility and in an informed manner”.

This is incredibly dangerous. Who gets to decide whether or not I’m being responsible? Am I responsible if I criticise a “faith community” and members of that “faith community” violently overreact? We cannot allow ourselves to get into the situation that exists in some countries where a deliberately thin-skinned group can hold us to ransom, can force us to censor ourselves under the threat of violence.

Freedom of expression is far too important to be thrown away trying to legislate politeness. Tolerance is all that a free society can offer. To demand respect, or more, for one person’s beliefs is to limit their right of others to express their beliefs.

Hat tip: Kiwiblog.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 19th, 2007 at 9:44 pm and is filed under Chilling Effect, Religious Expression. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.