It is understandable that people who are part of the great
majority will be upset when someone openly displays something that is against
what they believe, but to have a man be arrested by the government for such an
act is violating basic human rights. Not only is his freedom of speech being
hindered by both government and other members of society, but his and his
family’s right to a secure and lawful environment was completely eradicated. It
pains me to hear that the society in which Alber Saber is not accepting of his
expressions, but unfortunately, the Egyptian Muslim culture is not similar in
comparison to what the Western culture is.
Although I’m not completely aware of what the Eastern
cultures’ view on freedom of speech is, I do know that it is partially
incorporated into government constitutions or promised by these governments
(including Egypt) through being signatories in international pacts such as the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
This, however, brings up the difference between the
political aspect of a law and the social aspect of a law. Though the law may be
established, the people do not necessarily have to abide by it, and if there is
no strong judiciary system to back these laws, then, for all intents and
purposes, there might as well not be a law. So how does one change the social
aspect of a law to match the political purpose? I believe that education of the
people is generally the manner to do so, but in this example, not even the
government is willing to take the law seriously, only reinforcing the people’s
decision to endanger Saber and his family.
Though in the short run we know that this is not what the
world wants to see, it is perhaps better in the long run because if it was not
Saber, it could have just as easily been someone else in which case the matter
would have risen up again; but now that this problem is up in the air, the
world can pressure the government in Egypt to pardon Saber which should serve
as an example to the population that freedom of speech, even if the speech is
in disaccord with the majority of the population, is not a criminal act.
No comments:
Post a Comment