No one can doubt the sanctity of freedom of expression. At first, everyone has the right to speak about what he likes, in terms which seem consistent with his thinking. As the comments are the personal and small, this can in no way constitute an obstacle freedom in an absolute sense. However, freedom of expression is not necessarily synonymous with freedom of broadcasting or publication. For the moment the words are published, they cease to be the personal domain to be part of public affairs. And when in this particular situation must be careful what we say because we can not afford to confuse freedom of speech with freedom to slander or denigrate or insult ...
Confusing the two freedoms and a trap that often we can fall if you do not pay attention to certain subtleties and recently "Tunisnews" was a victim of this kind of trap. People of "Tunisnews" despite the considerable effort they are willing to offer information "different" to their readers, can sometimes make a mistake. In the Arab part of their edition of April 20, they picked an article published earlier by the site "Sabil on line" and is a sort of open letter signed by a former political prisoner to the President of the Republic.
This is not the content of the letter, at the height of the smallness of its author, moreover, the subject of my note, but rather an excerpt from that letter that I'll translate trying to be as faithful as possible to the spirit and content of the sentence in question:
"... it was not entitled to the nomination for president in 2009 that claims. This right may be accessible to a "slave" black living under a democratic system governed by justice and equality and regulated by institutions, but for a citizen living in a free country ... this right can only be a form Mirage "...
In the original text, the author uses the term" 3abd "can be translated as" a be "or" a man "and therefore the choice of the term" slave "in the translation may be incorrect assessment. I confess that, like you, I hesitated long before I decided to choose the word slave. But I could not understand the meaning of the sentence otherwise. Let me explain. The author makes his remarks in a parallel between two different concepts between one situation to another and one condition to another. If these same words he defined himself as a citizen (implying being) free, by inference a free one can be against a non-free, that is to say a slave. This respect the consistency of logic hinged about duality: democracy, dictatorship, justice-injustice ...
should not be an expert in terminology to guess that behind the author of the letter is as a former political prisoner , hiding the identity of a Muslim. Simply to see literature and vocabulary used. One can understand his bitterness and we can also consider his remarks as a slip. But in this case it will be a Freudian slip that confirms that among the Islamists there is a solid majority continues to believe that some things that we thought others were outdated trenches and finally, are yet in force because there was never a Qur'anic text (only valid criterion for this category of people) to be repealed. And that's where the problem arises. For if this brave gentleman did not understand that their religion there is no difference between an Arab and a non-Arab except in degrees of piety, and for him that slavery is a law has never been abolished by the good god, then all the other controversial issues are also pending. Which in other words means that more than 14 centuries after Muhammad is not yet out of the woods ...
Confusing the two freedoms and a trap that often we can fall if you do not pay attention to certain subtleties and recently "Tunisnews" was a victim of this kind of trap. People of "Tunisnews" despite the considerable effort they are willing to offer information "different" to their readers, can sometimes make a mistake. In the Arab part of their edition of April 20, they picked an article published earlier by the site "Sabil on line" and is a sort of open letter signed by a former political prisoner to the President of the Republic.
This is not the content of the letter, at the height of the smallness of its author, moreover, the subject of my note, but rather an excerpt from that letter that I'll translate trying to be as faithful as possible to the spirit and content of the sentence in question:
"... it was not entitled to the nomination for president in 2009 that claims. This right may be accessible to a "slave" black living under a democratic system governed by justice and equality and regulated by institutions, but for a citizen living in a free country ... this right can only be a form Mirage "...
In the original text, the author uses the term" 3abd "can be translated as" a be "or" a man "and therefore the choice of the term" slave "in the translation may be incorrect assessment. I confess that, like you, I hesitated long before I decided to choose the word slave. But I could not understand the meaning of the sentence otherwise. Let me explain. The author makes his remarks in a parallel between two different concepts between one situation to another and one condition to another. If these same words he defined himself as a citizen (implying being) free, by inference a free one can be against a non-free, that is to say a slave. This respect the consistency of logic hinged about duality: democracy, dictatorship, justice-injustice ...
should not be an expert in terminology to guess that behind the author of the letter is as a former political prisoner , hiding the identity of a Muslim. Simply to see literature and vocabulary used. One can understand his bitterness and we can also consider his remarks as a slip. But in this case it will be a Freudian slip that confirms that among the Islamists there is a solid majority continues to believe that some things that we thought others were outdated trenches and finally, are yet in force because there was never a Qur'anic text (only valid criterion for this category of people) to be repealed. And that's where the problem arises. For if this brave gentleman did not understand that their religion there is no difference between an Arab and a non-Arab except in degrees of piety, and for him that slavery is a law has never been abolished by the good god, then all the other controversial issues are also pending. Which in other words means that more than 14 centuries after Muhammad is not yet out of the woods ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment