Alborz

Dear Princess...

...yes, we are in agreement in this regard.  In societies where individual freedoms are more firmly established, people are more mindful of their interactions and more vested in preserving their freedoms through self-restraint.

In contrast, societies where individual freedoms are constrained, particularly through religious edicts, transgressions are more common and they are dealt with more harshly.  As a result, the response to the cartoon was to be expected.

Best to you also,

Alborz

Alborz jaan

Thank you for your very kind words.

I agree with your conclusion, but would like to stress the subtle but very important issue that those "restrictions" need to be exercised voluntarily by individuals. I strongly believe that introducing a formal framework to enforce such restrictions would always remain artificial and not deal with the core of a problem. In the end its only through dialogues (however painful at times) that we can learn and develop respect for each other. Obviously in a democracy when hate speech leads to physical violence and discrimination against individuals this should and often is dealt with through appropriate laws. 

Of course you and I have discussed this exhaustively in the past. Thank you again for sharing your thoughtful take on this.

Be well, dear friend. 

Dear Shirin

... I found your brief statement rather absolute and reactionary.

Its brevity is perhaps why I would like to believe that what it implies is really not what you believe nor how you would behave.  I can't imagine you, as an example, challenging someone's views disrespectfully.

Alborz

Dear Princess....

... I found myself not necessarily agreeing wholeheartedly with either perspective that was expressed. 

Mr. Ganji was making his argument based on the pervailing inequity in the "democratic" societies of the west and in a way used this opportunity to drive this point at the expense of addressing the real question at hand.  Mr. Kalantari addressed the topic more directly and in this regard I can understand why his responses were more likel to resonate with you.

But I know from your writings and commentary that you abide by a set of principles which, for the lack of a better word, I would like to call as a "moral compass".  Despite the freedom of speech you exercise, you don't allow the words of others to cause a deviation from what your principles.  Now imagine if we all similar principles - yes as difficult as this may seem to imagine - then the debate and the reactions would be entirely different.

I found this debate very intriguing primarily because it led me to conclude and reaffirm in my mind that the answer is not in absolute freedoms or elimination of inequity, but in the recognition that in order for us, as a society, to maximize the "fruits" of freedom we all must accept limitations in our individual freedoms - one of which is the manner in which we express our views.

Glad that you enjoyed this program also.

Alborz

برای من

انسان بسیار مهم است نه عقایدش و نه مقدساتش

هیچ لزومی ندارد که به باور های دیگران احترام بگذاریم

شیرین

Another excellent debate

Thanks for sharing again, Alborz jaan. I found myself nodding wholeheartedly when Aghaye Abdi Kalaantari was talking.

I would just like to point out that Akbar Ganji is confusing free speech with hate speech. As the lady pointed out, the issue he seems to have difficulty with has its source somewhere else and not in free speech.

Video can be watched on BBC site.

Alborz