You can't say that!

Why not?

I have always been fairly intrigued by the topic of freedom of speech. It appears to be such a simple logic. That in this world, people should have the right to speak their minds. A famous quote by Evelyn Hall, summarizing the thoughts of Voltaire, that while 'I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it'. It seems pretty clear cut doesn't it?

But on the other hand, it can be such a dangerous route to go down. Because once you agree that freedom of speech is crucial and of the utmost importance, then we are opening the floodgates to having to defend the indefensible. As Gaiman said, you are going to have to 'defend the right of people to read, or to write or to say, what you don't say, or like, or want said.'

I find it's this double edged that people often find it hard to reconcile with. But is it really as simple as knowing how to balance the scale between freedom of speech, and human sensibility? We should all be allowed to speak freely, but with that power also comes a certain level of responsibility (As spiderman said, right? Haha.) Knowing your limits and utilising the very important skill of tact is often overlooked once people step up on their soapbox. It's much easier said than done, of course. I mean it seems as though to me, the whole idea of freedom of speech started to gain momentum as people seeked to voice their discontent, their arguments, their views on sensitive topics like race, gender and religion. As emotions fire their need to speak out, sensibility often flies out the window.

So what then? An interesting take could be that if you can't stop people from saying what they want, if you have to defend their right to say it, then perhaps it would do us all good, as listeners, to learn how to distinguish between what is true or false, between fact and opinion. After all, freedom of speech gives them the right to speak their minds, but it doesn't give them the right to have others listen. So if you know well and good, that someone is spouting hate about a particular topic, instead of giving him the attention that he so desires, tune him out. It might anger us, it might offend and insult but as the party that is being attacked, if we know that there is no basis for his allegations, then letting go and ignoring it should be as easy as water sliding down our backs. Should be, being the key phrase here. Haha.

I guess at the end of the day, it is difficult to balance the scale between freedom of speech and the extent of censorship. How much leeway should we give, what are the consequences of allowing emotional and potentially damaging messages to be broadcasted across society? Do we trust our people to have the ability to differentiate between truth and false truth?

No real conclusion as of yet, but a good measure? Don't take everything that we read or hear as truth, learn the art of salt pinching (heh.), learn to question our sources, learn to form our own opinions. We could all do with a little less ignorance, and a lot more of critical thinking.

Freedom of speech, in swedish is 'Yttrandefrihet'. Swedes seem to like joining their words together :)

Thread lightly,

for you thread on my dreams.

The US media has been going stir crazy the past month with their reporting on Park51.  One side of the camp says America is about religious freedom and people should be free to worship where they choose. Then the other says building the mosque so near to Ground Zero is equivalent to a slap in the faces of people that lost their loved ones in 9/11. As in many things in life, it's hard to split everything down the middle between black and white. There is always a grey area... and I think in this instance, the grey area is sensitivity to those affected by 9/11 and survivors that lost people they loved.

Unfortunately, this grey area has been blown (no pun intended) entirely out of it's it's meant proportion by the media and people who are too vocal for their own good. They shifted their argument to focus on the community centre being a headquarters for terrorism, (seriously.) and we allllll know how well that's gonna turn out.

That said, I know that 9/11, although orchestrated by Al Qaeda, doesn't equate Islam and the entire population of Muslims to terrorism. Moreover, the Park51 project is more like a community center than a mosque. 

But on the other hand, I don't think it's hard to just understand why many have reservations towards the Islamic religion after 9/11. Because despite the terrorists being extremist and despite extremists not representing what Islam is really about, essentially to these people, religion was their primary motivation and it was unfortunate that their view of Islam differed from the mainstream. Even more unfortunate, was that their screwed up interpretation of Islam was practically broadcasted across the entire nation. Bearing in mind, that emotions are powerful beyond words.

So yes, them being assholes does not mean it is fair for the Muslims in America to lose their right to worship as they choose. But when some have caused grief to others in the name of that religion, (albeit a very screwed up and extreme interpretation of said religion), I don't think it's unreasonable to not want a center/facility/whatever it may be that has, in some way or another, links to a core motivation for the 9/11 incident, to be built near where it had happened. Not because it is dangerous, but just for the reason that it would be a painful reminder.

You can repeat a billion times over, that Islam religion had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. And you would be right. But as I mentioned, emotions? They're bad ass mofos man. All that made many people see, was not that the terrorists happened to be Muslim but that the terrorists were Muslim.

Emotions cloud judgment, undeniably so. But it's emotions that make us all human.

Religious freedom, to have the right to worship as you choose - I absolutely agree. But on the other hand, I think it wouldn't hurt to thread lightly, be tactful and maybe just show a little understanding and respect, on both sides.

Anyway the whole debate among the politicians is such a farce. They should just shut their freaking pie holes. After all, doesn't their constitution state that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."? So hold their comments. It's a slippery slope and they've lost their bearings far too long ago.

I do think we come across another grey area with regards to when the government should interfere. In my previous post on Prop 8, I spoke of my belief that the government has the duty to make sure that the basic rights of people are not infringed upon by any one religion. In this case, one can argue that the government also has the duty to ensure that the basic rights of people to worship where they choose, is not infringed upon by the misconceptions/biases that some people may hold towards any one religion. But as I mentioned, the other grey area here is that people are not saying you can't have the freedom to worship whomever you choose, but it would be good manners, to not built your place of worship around the grounds that people still hold strong feelings about. A little of give and take would be nice, perhaps.

Anywayyyy, legalities and political motives aside. Everyone else? Show a little tolerance, show a little respect, hug, and let's move on. Hahah. If only it were that easy eh.

On a lighter note, went to catch "Going the Distance" tonight! Was quite a funny movie, it was better than I expected actually! Such familiar situations...... but of course they managed to resolve it with prettier and less angsty 'solutions'. Haha. If only life could imitate film huh ;)

To end off, courtesy of Cassie ♥

Swedish words: sjunga, skratt, ler - sing, laugh, smile (:

A good day

for common sense and equality.

So Prop 8 was overturned on Wednesday! Although some people may say that marriage is just a piece of paper and if you really love somebody, you don't actually need that paper to prove it. Plus, there's always a Civil Union? But I think the issue goes a little further than that, true they don't have to get married, but by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, something that all human beings should have - that's when it crosses a line. Because my belief is that after all, marriage is not just a privilege that only heterosexual couples have.

There are those that say, why can't they be contented with a civil union? Well I'd think it's because there are legal differences? I've learnt that with marriage comes various automatic rights and benefits granted by the government which are not applied to those bound by a civil union. Where's the equality in that? You might not like the way they choose to live their lives, but it doesn't give you the right to take away their right to express their love and to have the same benefits that heterosexual couples are entitled to. Seriously, how can you have a law that eliminates the rights of a certain group?

Then there are those that say marriage is a sacred arrangement/ceremony between a man and a woman. But with all due respect, how does religion have anything to do with 2 consensual, loving, law-abiding people who want to share and spend their lives together? If one says marriage is for procreation, then does that mean that a woman who is infertile does not have the right to marry the man she loves because she won't be able to fulfill that duty of procreation? 

I'm not denying that religion plays a huge role in this world that we live in, but I also hold the belief that it is the duty of the government to protect the basic rights of every single human being, and that includes the right to be bonded to the one they love, even if they are of the same sex. It is their duty to make sure that this right is not infringed upon by any one religion.

Then there's the argument that tradition dictates/insists/shows that a traditional marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. But tradition also once dictated that women didn't vote, that a black and a white didn't marry. A woman voting, and inter-racial marriages were not traditional. Well, look at where we stand on those issues now. Just because it's traditional doesn't make it right.

If they are so adamant on protecting marriage, it might do more good banning divorce rather than banning marriage between people who love each other. Hah. Just saying.

Anywayyy, it's the 9th of August! Happy birthday Singapore! The little island turns 45 this year :) The weekend has been pretty awesome thus far. Manchester United - Charity shield winners! Hopefully this signals a good start to the season ;) 

Och jättekul helg med Monica, Steve, Robben, Marie och Simon på 1 Altitude och One St Michaels (Heh). Öl, vin, Italiensk mat, fyrverkerier på lördag, öl, vin, jättegod middag med gott sällskap på söndag. Det var jättetrevligt (:

Swedish words this time, 

Fyrverkerier - fireworks!

Gott sällskap - good company

Lastly, they sure know what they're talking about in Detroit ;)