Question:
CASE STUDY 2 Overview This work is an analysis of a contentious case pertaining to human rights. By the term ‘contentious’ it is meant that the case is not “straight forward” because there are “layers of complexity”. For example, there may be a ‘conflict’ of rights and responsibilities such that what is required is an analysis/discussion of the prioritising of rights; or, the case may be highly debated within the public arena and as such, quite “emotive”. Examples of such “conflict” of rights is that of individual rights and cultural practices; freedom of expression and freedom from vilification. The purpose of this assessment is for students to engage with opposing perspectives on contemporary human rights issues that enables application of theoretical concepts and arguments to literal situations.
TITLE: Case Study: Contention, Conflict, Complexity – A Conclusion TOPIC AND PROCESS: A dedicated Discussion Board will be established for each tutorial group during week 5 of semester. Students will be presented with cases of human rights issues. Students are to choose 1 case for discussion. Students must complete a minimum of 3 substantive postings in the Discussion Thread. These postings must address previous points within the thread and illustrate application of the literature and concepts addressed in readings, lectures and tutorials (simple “I agree/disagree” will not be considered adequate and therefore not count in the total of postings). Students then submit the written assignment which is an analysis of the Case and shows evidence of engagement with the points developed through the on-line Discussion and draws a conclusion based on the literature, critique and reasoned argument. Students are to use a minimum of 8 academic references.
This assessment has 2 parts:
Discussion Board Participation – Students complete a minimum of 3 substantive postings within the 1 thread 2. Case Study Analysis – Students provide a discursive analysis of the contentious human rights issue that illustrates engagement with the literature and the Discussion Board but is more than a repetition of postings. Note – cutting- and- pasting of postings may equate to plagiarism and could result in a charge of academic misconduct. Students must show an integration of critique of points and arguments from the Discussion Board; engagement and critique of the literature; clear, logical argument and conclusion.
Answer:
The following essay is going to address the issue of human rights as it has been discussed in the provided case study. The topic seems to be hovering around the issues on double standard and hate speech. Since the4 social complexity is rising vehemently, and the social activists are on the mode of such understanding level, it has the opportunity of the senses which has been taking part in all sorts of formative activism. The essay has two parts. The first part is going to address the issues as indicated in the most respective genre of human rights and its generalising powers. It is going to be a discussion thread and the second part is going to analyse the details of the provided case study. There are certain level of critical understanding of the case analysis on double standard and hate speech. These two issues are extremely violent and conflicting while dealing with human being and his social interference.
Creation of Thread Discussion:
In general sense, threads are created in order to design a conversation level that has discussions on the topic and reply according to the concept building process. Following is the structure of thread that has constituted posting details on argumentative discussion on the double standard and human rights related issues.
Student 1 Initial response to the Case Topic:
While responding to the topic of discussion I have determined to carry on with the fact that my understanding on the subject hate speech and double standards is quite negative. I do not think that a person should be engaged in the position to raise his or her voice on the basis of religion. There are much more serious issues that can be dealt with. I have recently gone through two of the videos that portrayed outrageous speech of two different religious preachers and practitioners from two major Asian countries – Bangladesh and India. Both of the countries have been in news for recent days because of constant growth of some sensitive issues regarding religious difference and conflict. Constant growth of religious difference and hatred between two of the major Asian religions- Hinduism and Islam has been quite outrageous in recent days when an Islamic clergy from Bangladesh disgraced his religious compatriot for attending so called Hindu festival “poila baishakh”- the New Year for the Bengali community. On the other hand, several places in India is frequented by the Hindu armed forces who are supposed to celebrate “Ram Navami”- another Hindu festival. In these two scattered case, hate speech against each other has raised agitation among people against the other religions. Is this a state of country or a world that is called democracy? I do not think so because the entire world seems to be moving backward and people are sitting without a voice against the vehement practice.
Reply from Student 2:
In this case I have a say that most of the religious factors are not responsible. I think that most of the religious figures- especially the extremists are not ready to acknowledge the fair existence of the other religions. Religion is no longer limited to human race. It has rather extended its view to racism and gender bias. Hence we face such complexity in the modern age. How could one forget the Christian rage upon the Jews during Nazi period?
Student 1 Reply:
You may seem right, though there is no direct provision of involvement in religious aspect.
Student 2 Reply:
I do not agree to it at all because the first and the foremost cause of such hate speech is the counter version or reverse attack of what they have been undergoing for decades and centuries. People have a mindset that a particular religious group has proven themselves as vehement.
Student 1 reply:
This is because most of the cases the media does not play an unbiased role. As the media has the problem to b e biased and human right is not properly projected they are bound to create a misconception pertaining to this proble.
Student 2 Reply:
Yet, I think that this problem needs to be critically reviewed and addressed to a greater level so that a better world can be revived.
Student 1reply:
Agreed!
A Reflective Insight on Hate Speech and Double Standard
The European legal treatment of Islamophobic as well as homophobic speech does the illustration of the two horns of the impasse that the democratic states are facing to forbid hateful speech. From the perspective of U.S. First Amendment, the European approach to speech is having the involvement of Islam specifically, which is representing a worst-of-both-worlds standpoint, whereas regarding the extension of their approach in regard to racist hate speech, European legislators as well as judges have banned anti-Muslim as well as pro-terrorism speech (Khan 2015).
Prosecuting the right-wing extremists to say or write matters that lack direct provocations towards violence are having certain probable negative aspects that have been reflected upon by other scholars. Such prosecutions might be having the propensity for turning the haters into victims as well as martyrs, and they might at times do the driving of hate institutions underground in ways that makes it very tough in monitoring them. The counter-balancing of these downsides are done by the significant symbolic message that are targeted by the full as well as equal polity members, who receive safety as well as status from the state. But, a negative aspect in this context is associated with the other vulnerable groups, which even though get targeted by hateful speech have not been banned, are still not full and equal members (Hasan 2015).
Irrespective of the changes that occurred in the legislation such as the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act in Britain, the years that followed Danish cartoons’ publication in 2005 did the witnessing of virtually no success in respect of appeals from Muslims towards national and global legal establishments for restricting the publication of the Prophet’s caricatures. Muslim governments as well as NGOs are continuously trying to do the persuasion of Western states for including Islam within the protective domain of their present laws regarding blasphemy or hate speech or creating a new legal aspect of religious insult or religious defamation. However, Danish prosecutors declined for inducting the editors or cartoonists at Fyllands-Posten in respect of speech that was associated with blasphemy or hate. Moreover, the Danish courts also did the rejection of a private complaint regarding defamation (Khiabany 2015).
In fact, after the January 2015 terrorist attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo as well as a Kosher grocery store in Paris, there occurred the juxtaposition of the French celebration regarding the right of the magazine in mocking the powerful as well as powerless in a similar way. In this context, it can be stated that the speech related prosecution of the French Islamists did the predation of both the Charlie Hebdo attacks as well as the 2014 anti-terrorism law. Hence, the signal sent by the legal responses states that the European society members are having the freedom for mocking Islam but not advocating radical Islamism (McGEE 2015). In the same manner, the Europeans are having the freedom for mocking Islam but not mocking minorities based on race. The Muslims in Europe have constantly raised their objection regarding a double standard.
Human rights in many countries are complex and contentious. There may be a debate over the rights and responsibilities of citizens in a country. Countries have various laws pertaining to expressions of hate speeches against religions, races or other nations. However the matter faces different treatment in different country. For example, in Australia expression of hatred towards someone else’s race, religion or caste is not serious an offence enough to be punishable by law. Even the Australian Human Rights Commission does not have the power to take an action against the agitator if no complaint is lodged. The victim is required to initiate the process by lodging a complaint the person. There are once again several extents to which these complaints go. While some complainants do not advance much further while there are cases which reach the court and cause much debate. Australia, though home to people of several origins does not deal with racist or hateful comments strictly. Less than 2% complaints are tried or backed by court order and most of them are mediated by either removal of the hateful materials or seeking an apology (sbs.com.au 2017).
The United Kingdom has stringent laws dealing with hatred speeches involving caste, race, religion, nationality and other individual aspect. The Public Order Act 1986 recognises comments condemning a person race, colour, nationality or ethnic origins. The person who threatens, abuses or expression racial hatred is liable with a maximum sentence of seven years, fine or both. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 imposes a sentence of six, fine or both. However, all hateful speeches may not be dealt with strictly in the country. Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher was arrested for preaching homosexuality a sin on April 20, 2010. However, the jury decided not be prosecute the person and the police paid him compensation for arresting him. This action or treatment of a person spreading hate speech clearly goes against the British laws enacted to protect the dignities of its population with diverse origins.
The freedom of speech is guaranteed in France to all citizens The Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881. The freedom to express does not empower a person to spread comments or speeches targeting other person’s race, religion, ethnicity, physical deformity or any other attribute. It is both a civil and criminal office which attracts a year of imprisonment, a fine of €45000 or both. The Gayssot Act 1990 empowers a person to file a case if he considers articles in newspaper or any other print media hurts his sentiments. The Gayssot Act awards a person with a jail sentence for 5 years and € 45000 for trying to demean the harm on Human rights inflicted by the Nazis during the World War II. For example, in 1974 a judge prohibited a poster of a film showing a half clad woman crucified to a cross which hurt the sentiments of the Christians. This showed that unlike Britain and Australia, the French authority is stricter when it comes to protection of human rights.
Reference
Bonotti, M., 2017. Religion, hate speech and non-domination. Ethnicities, 17(2), pp.259-274.
Chelini-Pont, B. and Ferchiche, N., 2015. Religion and the Secular State: French Report.
Hasan, M., 2015. As a Muslim, I’m fed up with the hypocrisy of the free speech fundamentalists’. New Statesman, 13.
Khan, F. and Mythen, G., 2015. Double standards and speech deficits: What is sayable for British Muslims after Paris?. Sociological Research Online, 20(3), p.2.
Khiabany, G. and Williamson, M., 2015. Free speech and the market state: Race, media and democracy in new liberal times. European Journal of Communication, 30(5), pp.571-586.
McGEE, R.W., 2015. Hate Speech, Free Speech and The University. Akron Law Review, 24(2), p.4.
News. 2017. Explainer: how do Australia’s laws on hate speech work in practice?. [online] Available at: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/05/09/explainer-how-do-australias-laws-hate-speech-work-practice [Accessed 21 Apr. 2017].
Schmidt, A. and Wiegand, M., 2017. A Survey on Hate Speech Detection using Natural Language Processing. SocialNLP 2017, p.1.
