Delicate Sensibilities

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a UN treaty that came into force in 1976) states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. Is that justification for curtailing freedom of speech?

How, if at all, can freedom of speech be reconciled with the Muslim demand for a ban on public statements or cultural products that offend Islamic sensibilities.

Comparative Statements

I can never accept that freedom of speech is morally right when it offends my faith.

I can never accept that freedom of speech is morally right when it offends my atheism.

* * *

We need some formal, internationally agreed restriction on the defamation of religion.

We need some formal, internationally agreed restriction on the defamation of atheism.

* * *

There is a Muslim demand for a ban on public statements or cultural products that offend Islamic sensibilities.

There is a atheist demand for a ban on public statements or cultural products that offend atheism's sensibilities.

* * *

Imagine that. The example of atheism is a little extreme, but instructive. Or imagine the italics substituted with Christians, Hindus, Chinese Universalists, Buddhists, ethnoreligionists, neoreligionists, Sikhs, Jews, Spiritists, Baha'is, Confucianists, Jains, Shintoists, Taoists, or Zoroastrians.