Colombo, Sri Lanka -- (ReleaseWire) -- 03/09/2015 --The recent verdict by the Munich State Court has triggered-up critical thorny questions on the west, its stance position's fourth-estates, the entire opinion outlook and above all the judiciary.
51-year-old former German attorney, Sylvia Stolz's case has presaged the entire world's sense of rationality exasperated and portended for what manifested starkly, in quite strange as well as sad way. Former German Attorney Sylvia Stolz has been convicted of Holocaust denial last week. According to the AP sources from Berlin, Munich state court spokeswoman Andrea Titz said, Sylvia Stolz was convicted of denying the Holocaust in a 2012 speech, reportedly. (Court's ruling reported by Associated Press in Berlin, The Olympian, and New York Times).
It's noteworthy that, nevertheless 51-year-old Sylvia Stolz argued during her trial that she was exercising her right to 'free speech', the state court, however, made strong rejections, abjurations and renunciations on her 'free-speech right' account.
'Freedom of Speech' is the narrative that is vastly and quite pretentiously used by the west to not only validate, but justifiably vindicate the blasphemies. The notion of an 'absolute free speech' serves as the basic 'construct-version of interpretation' for the nefarious motives behind blasphemous acts. However, the same narrative doesn't qualify and never comes to be corroborated for validation, when it comes to certain sensitively 'lodged issues', like Holocaust denial---or even undercounting to the genocidal figures.
Judiciously viewed, the instance-case of Munich Court's last week verdict of sentencing Sylvia Stolz, is imperatively critical-enough on the face of free-speech's limitations. The ruling essentially pleads the global community, on rational grounds, to have a prudent sense-impression of the Munich court verdict's base-line on the subject-matter under focus i.e. "one's right to free speech".
The court's verdict, not only sets a lucidly clear international precedency for necessitating the limits to free speech, but also by accepting the very baseline, strongly endorses the prevention of the dogma's practice, and clearly describes that up to what realms the 'baseline' implies for ---- by any means----in any sense,---through any mode----and, by any measure.
On the contrary, there exist no limits to 'free speech', when it tremors the sentiments, frissons the minds, and gravely injures the feelings of communities---across the continents, by blasphemous acts---for instance the repetitive recurrences of immoral profanities and dissolute violence by certain disparaged blasphemous quarters like Charlie Hebdo, who are licensed in the world to express overt hatred flagrantly and blatantly express in whatsoever way they like; there are no moral, nor ethical neither judicial, or even no humanistic limits that they are bound to be within.
The worst case scenario ingrained by Charlie Hebdo--perhaps the nastiest amidst the modern civilization's archives, has planted the seeds of severe and deep-rooted cross-ethnic conflicts, that can never be counteracted to be offset by any measure.
It is, strange as well as sad to see that western courts didn't bother to disqualify and prohibit the 'same occurrences' on the 'same accounts' as demonstrated in 51-year-old Sylvia Stolz's case.
This twin-face attitude is a strong, vibrant and lucidly-clear reflection, as well as a direct measure of the moral decline behind all this.
In the circumstantiality of such a wretched grief-strickings, the dual-criterion for 'free speech' notion is, nothing but an awkwardly disgraceful enough modality of ridiculous manifestation of deflated societies, having no acclimatization of moral perspectives.
On account of the communal attitude manifested thereupon, the western judiciary has sadly and dismally lost its moral authority and institutional integrity as an institution. All this is not, but the stark indexing of a complete judicial as well as moral decline.
Some Critical Questions on the Verdict's Base-line:
Apparently, the 'tender-keepers' of free speech, along with their necessarily biased and completely discriminatory partisan mass-means, while advocating their tarnished-hatred, present certain unprincipled arguments in wrapped logical-fallacies,---- but are these argument-indexes actually so, as they are opinionated and dogmatized to appear…? Do these jargons and verbiages certainly provide some justifiable grounds for a 'free speech' without any limits ..? Does the free speech notion hold an absolute value anywhere…?---even in the western culture…? Can 'freedom of expression' be meant for over-riding the ethico-moral deeds…? And above all,----is it practicable when it comes to the sensitivities based sentiments…??? These are some thorny questions posed over to the minds that hold a conscience within---or have some sense of righteousness. Exercising the free speech, that may hurt or emotionally injure a certain ethnicity, is criminalized, whereas the blasphemies crossing all the limits of ethics, moral codes and even humanity-based values, are tolerable and permissible to damage multiethnic peace of the global communities by planting the seeds of tarnished hatred blasphemies.…??? These are the morality-probes, impersonated from the least of a rational mind,--- a considerate mind that can hold to the state of affairs, when it come to humane, moral and judicial convictions. The questions are serious-enough in their nature and henceforth, are to be dealt with great trepidations.
In fact, the crux of this verdict and other precedencies like the present one, is simply that, there exists nowhere in the world where the licenses are granted that one can flagrantly say and blatantly express whatever he likes; there are certain limits that one is supposed to be within.
However, pretty conversely, the kind of moral trait-outlook manifested by the west, on the face of 'free speech', would never be pardonable,--- nor on judicial, neither on the least of humanitarian accounts.!!!
Fabled adversarial multi-disciplinary methodological arch-analyst, Professor Qadhi Aurangzeb Al Hafi unswervingly denounces the shameful appalling of the twin-face defiance by the west.
About the Analyst
Professor Qadhi Aurangzeb Al Hafi name is no stranger to any state of affairs, when it comes to moral and humane convictions. Splendid author of the phenomenological monographs named "Observation on the Cross-roads of Fog & Illusion" and "Behr-e Sarab dar Chashm-e-Aab", the epitome watch-word 'Aurangzeb Al-Hafi' always stands for raising courageous, sane and upright voice, at the critical most junctures of the era's considerations.
Prof. Al-Hafi, encompasses a broad-based multilevel knowledge in an upsurge summation of almost 93 subject-fields and henceforth indubitably imprints his distinct mark-etchings of an irrefutable 'unparallelness', in an enormous plethora of learned superfluities of the present times.
By compositions and dispositions, Prof. Hafi is an avant-garde erudite and eclectic transcendent of enormously unusual and staggeringly rare combinations i.e. a luminous innovatory scientist and an enormously assertive philanthropist, a superb inventor and a conscience-pricking moralistic poet, an upright analytical eye-opener and a strong phenomenological theorist, a free-of-charge physician for complex disabilities of retarded children and a splendidly super-charged and world renowned embalmed epidemiologist in devastating catastrophic and post-disastrous situations, a forward-looking innovative communal consultant and an inventive practitioner of integrated alternative medicines, an orientalistic philosopher and, a dynamic revolutionary thinker,------- altogether, incorporatedly rolled in one person, at the same time.
Prof. Aurangzeb Al-Hafi served as head of projects concerning the disable population during Tsunami-2004, and maintained liaisons with UN and concerned agencies thereof.
Munich State Court's Recent Verdict on Sylvia Stolz's Case Makes "Free Speech" Position-Stance Retained Upheld; a Thorough and Contentious Synthesis of the Decision's Preludes Set-Documented by Prof. Aurangzeb Hafi
An imperative and significantly domineering briefing on the critical analysis of the Munich State Court's recent verdict on 51-years-old Sylvia Stolz’s case, has been set-documented in “free-speech” notion’s perspectives by SAARC region's Post-doc assessor, Prof. Qadhi Aurangzeb Al Hafi. The Former German Attorney’s case requires and essentially calls for a fair and firm 'merit baseline' to out-wit and prevaricate the ‘twin-face dual-criterions’ of the western judicial-values canon.