Insult Me

Yes, I'm aware that the article below is of poor quality. I'll re-do it if I have the time and energy. In the meantime it's a nice way to blow off steam - I really am irritated by the constant news of people being "offended" and how it's a major crime to offend someone. Ironically I'm writing about not letting your feelings affect your decisions in a bad way, but it gets more and more obvious towards the end that I feel very strongly about this. Don't read it, if you like. I've just been accumulating lots of "mots justes" to say for the past few months on how everyone should just get off their high horse and accept that people can criticise them if they want. And now this news? :(

The Sedition Act 1948 has had its fair share of victims in the past months, in what was supposed to be its final stretch. However, our esteemed Prime Minister, Mr Najib, has bowed to the pressure of the intolerant in a true show of democracy (or is it populism?) by reneging on his promise to get rid of it. He says it will be strengthened, instead.

 

(What was announced in 2012: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2012/07/13/DPM-Repeal-of-Sedition-Act-proof-that-Govt-walks-the-talk/

What was announced last week: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/11/28/Sedition-Act-here-to-stay-says-PM/ )

Personally I responded to the news with very choice expletives.

There are few if any good reasons for limiting freedom of expression.

One, factual inaccuracies and libel/defamation, for obvious reasons. E.g.: publishing a serious, widely circulated article saying that X-unproven-alternative-medicine has been proven to work several times and that the results are verifiable/can be independently reproduced. And those people who have so-and-so chronic illness should stop taking so-and-so drug and instead rely solely on X. This sort of thing is a danger to society, and should merit a hefty fine and a public retraction (and if it results in deaths, a trial of manslaughter should be in order).

Two, bullying or threatening. If an individual is facing harassment, he or she should have the right to keep harassers at bay. Think Anita Sarkeesian, who received death threats, not only to her own life but also against those she would be giving her talk to, a la Montreal Massacre. People who make these threats should be made to undergo a psych evaluation at least, and if needed jailed or kept in an asylum.

Three, issues of security – military plans, for instance.

Otherwise, so long as no physical harm comes to a person, we cannot judge the danger of words. There are many things we cannot prevent because we cannot measure. The problem with censoring with so wide a brush as the Sedition Act is that, more often than not, it is used against people who revolt against the status quo with their words. They express a different opinion from the state-approved Malaysian narrative, not necessarily in a bad way. But because they challenge the established order, these people are deemed threats to national harmony and peace.

I am not employing the slippery slope fallacy here: these things really happen. Take the case of Azmi Sharom, who merely expressed a legal opinion on the monarchy’s role in selecting an executive. Or that of satirical cartoonist Zunar, Malaysia’s answer to KAL. Even a very broad look at what they did cannot establish that they in any way caused lives to be put in danger.

In my opinion, the government should stop pandering to “fine feelings” and acknowledge that criminal laws should be less about courtesy and morality, and more about protecting human rights. I am not an expert (or even amateur) on the matter of law and jurisprudence, but I know that morality has always been a subjective concept, and in prosecutions of victimless crimes (consensual adult sodomy, for instance) nobody really gains – not society, not the parties involved.

The problem with outlawing insults should be obvious, but apparently a lot of people spontaneously lose brain function when insulted. The thing is, some things need to be criticised to improve. And so long as any criticism is interpreted as offensive or insulting, to religion or otherwise, and we jail the critics, progress will be hard because people are more and more unwilling to criticise the status quo. We’d stagnate. Or worse, retard.

Change is uncomfortable, sure, but it’s the only thing we can ever be sure of – that nothing ever stays the same. So why should our society? Why should we be stopped from making ourselves better, making lives more stable, and society more equal, and living more easy? Why should we not adapt to the ever-changing world? Because of fear?

How about we teach our children to be critical thinkers – to not let emotion adversely affect what should be rational decisions? How about they learn to see through fallacious arguments, to accept facts over feelings? How about we teach our kids NOT to take offence at every chance, instead of reinforcing through media that the more delicate our pride and the thinner our skin, the more people will give way to us – as if we are superior because we are infinitely able to make ourselves victims?

But of course, that sort of thing doesn’t translate into many votes especially in the short run, so why would those in power care?