[Reader-list] reader-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 62Freedom and right to express at what cost to society.?

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear All, Dear Rakesh,

I think that the passivity that might get confused with peace in the  
absence of a freedom of expression is better described as stupor.  
Peace and Liberty cannot be traded for each other in some ridiculous  
zero sum game. If you win peace at the cost of liberty, or liberty at  
the cost of peace, you can not enjoy your peace (in the first  
instance) or express your liberty (in the second) rendering neither  
peace nor liberty substantive and real.

And, as for the rights of people and nation states, as far as I am  
aware, all rights, be they to universal adult suffrage, or freedom of  
conscience and expression have had to be snatched from the political  
establishments of nation states, if not, suffragates and dissidents  
would not have been imprisoned by all nation states in earlier times,  
including by those that posture as defenders of liberty today.

Finally, what about those who do not qualify as bona fide citizens of  
nation states (and there are many such people in the world). Do they  
not have rights, and if they do, (and these are recognized in  
international law as 'natural rights', and include the rights to life  
and liberty) then what are the sources of the rights. They are not  
citizens, so their rights cannot be sourced in the state that has  
sovereignty over them. So, clearly, the nation state is not the  
exhaustive or sole guarantor of rights for persons.

regards

Shuddha



On 25-Mar-09, at 3:42 PM, Rakesh Iyer wrote:

> Dear all
>
> I can understand the point that freedom of expression is more  
> important than
> peace, for after all any peace without any freedom of expression is  
> only the
> lull before the storm waiting to happen. Plus of course, it hampers  
> one of
> the basic human rights of citizens.
>
> However, the other question which is confusing my mind, as pointed  
> out in
> the article, is regarding nation-states providing rights to  
> citizens. I
> don't know much on this, so it would be good if we can discuss on  
> whether
> it's nation-states which act as the agencies to provide rights (and  
> hence
> without them people can't ask for rights), or is it that rights are  
> inherent
> irrespective of whether nation-states exist or not.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with  
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net