2010级研究生试卷-作文.doc

Paper A 1 / 4V. Writing (20%)Directions: For this part, you are to write a summary of either of the two articles that are presented to you in the following. Your summary should be about 180 words. Remember to write neatly.Passage 1Free Speech and Religious SensitivityThe publication of the caricatures（漫画） of the Prophet Muhammad（先知默罕默德） by the Danish newspaper in 2005 resulted in a violent international reaction by some members of the Islamic community in the world. The controversy raised new questions on freedom of expression and the extent to which such freedom can legitimately be used when religious and cultural sensitivities of certain groups are affected. It is apparent that the acts of violence in response to the cartoons were politically motivated and had to do with broader grievances（委屈不满）. A Malaysian newspaper editor summed up the situation when he declared, ‘This showdown is only 10% about the cartoons and 90% about everything else.’ The ‘everything else’ relates to the general sense of alienation and injustice that some segments of the Muslim community are feeling at the moment about the global war against terrorism. The right to freedom of expression is the bedrock of democratic, secular civilizations. It is enshrined in various international conventions. However this freedom is not absolute and the international instruments that enshrine the right also have clear provisions to limit or constrain freedom of expression. Normally, this will be when national security, public order, personal safety or rights and reputations of others are threatened. You cannot, for example, rely on the right to freedom of expression to defame another individual. But can you rely on freedom of expression to provoke, defame or offend a group? There is a clear line of authority in the European Human Rights Court limiting the right to freedom of expression in order to protect the sensitivities of Christian and Jewish interests, but not Muslim interests. While this may well be an accident of history, in politics, perception matters. The European Human Rights Court held that the pre-emptive（预先的） banning of films depicting Jesus Christ and Christianity in an offensive manner was not in violation of the protection of free speech enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention. The Court did hold that the degree of offensiveness had to be significant before the Article 10 right could be affected, but nevertheless affirmed that states had a ‘wide margin of appreciation’ in determining whether or not to limit free speech in the interest of religious sensitivity.On the other hand, in investigating the cartoon controversy, the Danish public prosecutor took the view that the publication of the cartoons was not in violation of the Danish Penal Code, which prohibits disturbing public order by publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship, or section 266, which prohibits insulting, threatening or degrading persons by publicly and with malice attacking, among other things, their religion. An earlier precedent that adds to the perception of discrimination involves Rushdie’s publication of the book Satanic Verses《撒旦的诗篇》in 1989. An attempt to prosecute Rushdie under the United Kingdom’s blasphemy laws Paper A 2 / 4failed. When state authorities are not sensitive to different cultural norms and values, the exercise of discretion can result in discrimination amongst citizens. The feelings of minority groups, on the other hand, may well not be within the consciousness of the state authorities. This is where multiculturalism（多元文化主义） becomes highly relevant. A multicultural policy would automatically engage minority groups and create the avenues for dialogue rather than alienation and violence. This is not to say that multiculturalism is the panacea for all ethnic conflict or violence. Nations that have strong multicultural policies, such as Canada, Australia and Britain have not been spared communal violence. The attacks on the London underground system in July 2005, the riots on Cronulla Beach, Sydney in December 2005 and the thwarted terrorist attempt in Toronto in June 2006 have shocked the respective countries. The danger with multiculturalism is that particular minority groups may be hijacked by radical elements from within, who then set their own agenda and assume the authority to speak for the group. Radicalization of cultural/religious groups is the beginning of the end for multiculturalism, or even coexistence, because the debate will be shifted to the extreme end of each polarity（两极）. When we allow radicalism to prevail, whether in terms of religious beliefs or freedom of expression, then instead of walking hand in hand along the middle path, we find ourselves with our backs to the wall and with little choice but to attack in defense. Constant dialogue between the mainstream and moderates on each side, underpinned by a genuine spirit of mutual accommodation, are imperative. Smaller nation-states and local commu。