[Reader-list] Freedom of Speech for Alien traitor muslims & hindus?

[ARNAB CHATTERJEE]

Dear Sarai readers and writers,
                    ( This mail didn't go through in
my first attempt, so Im trying for the second time and
there are some changes for good.) 
 
         While I had just started thinking about
Shudha's ethics of treason, Jeebesh
washed me away with his asylums and aliens.So two
short notes on both of them before getting any
further.( And this does not reflect my own positions
on freedom of expression etc.)

Shuddha first ;( though I still need to go through his
post fully).
   A muslim considered traitor by fellow muslims and
thus a hindu considered a betrayer by other hindus
makes interesting case against say Amartya Sen's views
on these ( And why did Shuddha celebrate them
elsewhere?). Consider Amartya's examples on an
intolerant Auurangzeb remaining a Muslim and a
tolerant Akbar also remaining a Muslim. Now, if go by
the ethics of treason( in its rudiments) then who
remains a muslim and who does not will be settled by
whom? They will be settled, as it is well known by
now, by "the structures of recognition" well
incorporatable into the "politics of recognition" as
such.Here how I or we will be recognised is dependent
on others rather than how we decide for ourselves. So,
Amartya's views are media-celebrated but vacous to say
the least ( by this simple reason that 'structures of
recognition' in Akbar's time are neither available,nor
are  they same as of now.) Shuddha's insertion opens
this debate in
this interesting direction. How to get out of this
dilemma? Shuddha seems to be calling for an enjoyment
of the allegation of treason or urging us to indulge
in ethical treason ( like ethical hacking?.Anybody can
suggest this to Taslima as well ( I guess oishik is
well placed to do this with furor) but even this
suggestion can rarely be universalized.What is the way
out?

There is no way out; we are knee deep into
the modern multicultural trap and pursuit. While an
other- recognition is mandatory and I may have respect
and responsibility, it is not necessary they will be
redoubled and returned in the manner in which I expect
it to be.
Theoretically, if we want to know this more, I can
suggest a way. Drawing on hermenetuic phenomenology,
this brilliant Indian philosopher ( though you will
not find him  invited at any seminars in India
atleast)Rajeswara Sunder Rajan (
not the feminist one)I remember talked about something
called "structures of transcendence" by which, I
opine, these structures of recognition by others and
one self, could be attempted-- by you, me and all of
us-- in a braceketed form, so that they could be 
transcended -- in a pure form. More on this
latter.

         Jeebesh has struck again and has hit a new
chord. While I temporarily disagree with his no
freedom of speech for aliens etc., I agree that asylum
should be dug for deeper news. 
     Though I think Lawrence Liang( who I guess is
undergoing a long leaning vasectomy operation in
Bangalore) could tell us best about this, I think
denying freedom of speech to aliens or immigrants is a
violation of their huamn rights under international
laws. The rights are not available to enemy aliens or
those booked under preventive detention. The former do
have freedom of speech( in the ordinary sense) but are
prone to all 'reasonable restrtictions' and
modifications that the government could subject these
laws and modifications to.But asylum is a different
case; has Taslima sought political asylum in writing?
I don't remember. ( So Pranab Mukherjee's call for
self control for asylum seekers is seriously
misplaced.)No political executive can settle for such
a call; it has to be juridically negotiated first. But
let
me cite here an American example in refutation of
Jeebesh's first thought.( Though Ashis Nandy speaking
for protection of constitutional rights is an irony in
all theoretical senses.)

In the wake of an arrest of immigrants alleged to have
been participating in subversive activities and thus
the first amendment ( protecting free speech)in the US
conflicting with the rights that could be enjoyed and
pursued by aliens, here is an important piece of
insertion.
      "U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson has ruled in
Los Angeles that when immigrants' First Amendment
rights collide with the Government's right to control
immigration, the First Amendment wins. It's a victory
for free speech and common sense. 
Judge Wilson, a Reagan Administration appointee, now
supports their view, declaring those provisions (of
deportation harmful aliens) unconstitutional. He found
that aliens, once admitted to the United States, have
free-speech rights which generally take precedence
over the Government's right to control immigration.
But that concession does not diminish the Government's
power to deport aliens engaged in harmful activity
unrelated to speech, like terrorism or crime. 

Too often, however, the harmful activity that
Government seeks to control is only speech. As Judge
Wilson noted: ''In this case, the Government is trying
to stifle certain ideas from entering our society from
certain aliens through its immigration power. Our
society, however, was built on the premise that only
through the free flow of ideas can our nation grow and
prosper.'' 

It's a judgment worth cheering. Judge Wilson rightly
recognizes that immigration law ought to control
offensive actions, not offensive views."
(The New York Times, Feb 13, 2008)
Thank you,
arnab



      Save all your chat conversations. Find them online at http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php