Basic HTML Version
Good democratic debate
depends upon our ability
to tolerate criticismof
our speech, our beliefs
and our culture. At the
same time, the debate
must be inclusive, and
not just governed by the
majority's premises.
That is how PhD candidate Jonas Jakobsen
responds when we ask what is considered
acceptable speech in a democratic society.
"But when we repeatedly hear that most
terrorists are Muslims, the rationality of the
debate is damaged, because that statement
is a direct lie. Lying is like poison to a
democratic debate. It forces the counter
debater to respond with admonishments
regarding the veracity of the statement,
rather than to respond with constructive
arguments," says Jakobsen.
Jakobsen is currently writing his dissertati-
on on religion's role in a modern democra-
tic society. His research is being conducted
in conjunction with the "Democracy, justice
and pluralism" research group at UiT.
Criticismand freedomof speech
The public debate in Norway after the
attacks on Utøya on 22 July has focused
to some extent on what kinds of speech
and offensive remarks we must allow and
tolerate.
First came requests for a more measured
approach to criticisms of Islam. Then came
accusations that there were too many
48
•••
Labyrint E/11
– University of Tromsø
Much of the debate after the 22 July shootings was about what
kinds of speech and offensive statements we as a society must
allow and tolerate. But the events of September 11 and the
Muhammad cartoons also spurred this same debate. Here, a
Muslim clearly his expresses his opinion about the Muham-
mad cartoons in a demonstration in Oslo. The sign reads:
Offending religion is not the freedom of speech. Photo: Stian
Lysberg Solum / Scanpix