Dear Editor,
I wish to respond in brief to the letter, 鈥淒rawing the line between protected speech and hate speech,鈥 authored by Roger Ally, and while I appreciate his concerns for the Hindu community, his argument for legal action against offensive speech towards religion is a perilous path for a democratic and pluralistic society. While insults towards one鈥檚 religion or religious deity may pose an emotional stir, the use of the blasphemy libel law to prosecute what some deem offensive is fundamentally a slippery slope. Mr. Ally鈥檚 position relies on a flawed and misplaced provision of our Constitution: Article 38F, which states, 鈥淣o person鈥檚 religion or religious belief shall be vilified.鈥
The history of this article is lacking. It is as though it was introduced without careful, deliberate debate about the boundaries of free speech. Instead, it was slipped into the constitutional amendments of 2003 under Article 38, a section that has no bearing on or semblance to a cause for religious protection. Article 38 concerns the economic prospects of the state and its commitment to human resources and societal development goals. Further, consider the articles surrounding 38F: they deal with the 鈥渂est interest of the child,鈥 鈥渃ompulsory education,鈥 and the 鈥渋ntegrity of the public service.鈥 Article 38F was incongruously wedged into a list of social and economic directives, turning what should be a guiding principle for societal development into a tool for unwarranted religious safeguards from criticism. This article, as I argued in my prior letter, undermines freedom of expression, and it could serve as a basis for criminal prosecution against certain expressions directed at religion. It is an undemocratic clause that should be repealed.
If a religion is truly one of peace, why must it resort to or threaten the suppression of speech in the face of perceived blasphemy? A truly peaceful religion would counter offensive speech not with a reliance on dubiously placed laws, but with dialogue, education, and the strength of its convictions.
The solution to offensive speech is not less speech, but more sensible and educated speech. It is through open dialogue and the exchange of ideas鈥攅ven those we find distasteful鈥攖hat we build a truly tolerant and resilient society, not through censorship enabled by misplaced and ill-conceived laws.
Ferlin Pedro