Right to reprobate


The blaspheme nature of The Cursed play, directed by Oliver Frljic, and the Drag Queen of the Carnival of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria have opened a discussion about the prosecution of such “opinion crimes”.

Obviously, the right to free speech implies the right to offend. Classifying a definition which would guarantee an objective interpretation of which may be an attack to religious feelings of a particular individual or group is practically impossible. The only that could result of that is a repressive environment as a result of censorship, of something that can be illustrated without going back to Inquisition and being conscious about the communist/fascist totalitarianism and the lack of religious freedom in Islamic countries, but regarding “progressive inquisition”.

LGBTI laws, which are legislative projects based on the ideology of gender, are an example of chasing those that, without being disrespectful, does not agree with the results of this project of social engineering, according to their moral or religious convictions. According to a report of the Heritage Foundation, whose author is Ryan T. Anderson, these projects based on “positive discrimination” represent “serious problems for freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech´´. Additionally, it’s important to remember that those legislative text approved in Extremadura and Madrid (in both cases, thanks to People’s Party) impose codes of ethics on media and violate the presumption of innocence because they revert the burden of proof.

Meanwhile, in some European countries, the critic to Islam has been banned (scepticism towards Muslim immigration is also prosecuted). For instance, a member of Finns Party was santioned because she said, “In these times, specifically in the recent past and today, all of the perpetrators of terrorist acts have turned out to be Muslim“; in Denmark, a Facebook user was declared guilty because he wrote that “the ideology of Islam is as loathsome, disgusting, oppressive and as misanthropic as Nazism. The massive immigration of Islamists into Denmark is the most devastating thing to happen to Danish society in recent history“; and the council of the Spanish City of Barcelona, ruled by the communist Ada Colau, will create an observatory to prosecute “islamophobia”. By the way, they might lay out laws with similar mechanism to LGBTI lags, focused on “privileging” atheists, muslims and laicists. Therefore, we could be persecuted for claiming a respectful attitude towards Western values, for criticising a multiculturalism that has created ravages.

Once those examples have been exposed, it’s clear that those classification could only suppose a risk of losing of freedom of speech. However, the right to criticise, to reprobate, is also something intrinsic to the premises of freedom of speech; but not only at the time of rejecting the thesis of the fellow or criticising anything, but also at the time of reacting for damning those by their guilty maybe somebody can feel offended (or we only appreciate something opposite to moral). Indeed, we have to consider that, in the same way that not everything that’s legal is moral, not every inmoral things have to be illegal “per se”. Then, in line with the journalist and filmmaker Mark Judge defending offensive speech is not a virtuous act (I think freedom must not be defended with a relativist perspective).

The role of civil society is essential, and not only at the time of promoting political-economical changes, but also at the time of defending values, culture and traditions of our society. Thus, while on the one hand, we have to reprobate People’s Party and its Polish partner (Civic Platform) in order to its absolute indifference, we ought to suggest a snobbish and hung-up Spanish Society (unless we talk about left-wing) for paying attention to the residents of John Paul II motherland, who pretend to make themselves respectful and have protested in front of Varsovian theatre where the performance was played to recriminate the offensive aspect of a performance that to cap it all has been funded with public money when artistic creations must depend only on citizenship sponsorship (even the corresponding installations must have any kind of state ownership). In addition, more than one Pole has had enough courage to consider that performance has not any reason to be considered artistic, but something blasphemous and opposite to culture and values of Polish society.

To conclude, we are able to oppose censorship, but also to reprobate, as civil society, everything to which we do not agree, independently of the reasons.