Freedom of thought

A rare and lost preface to Animal farm; novella written by George Orwell. This preface better known as Freedom to Press was written by Orwell himself and It gives equal cult to the topic which Orwell tried to heed on. I just edited it into readable PDF.

In ancient Greece freedom of speech was considered as democratic ideal where citizens have freedom to express their views without any restriction from government. India is secular country and largely known for its democratic principles our country has proposed various constitutional rights and freedom proposed in preamble itself as "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship" 2 and thus, enforcement of freedom of speech is key point to maintain democracy. But while enjoying the fundamental rights one should follow fundamental duties towards nation by keeping essence of democracy. In this module we will know the origin of this fundamental right of free speech we enjoy, we will also see the elements that are considered while allowing and prohibiting freedom to speech we will go through the freedom specifically restricted in Indian Judicial system and need for it, we will also understand the justification given to the limitations over it and end it with some critical analysis over this freedom and limitations and needs of it.

L’art. 16 della Dichiarazione dei diritti dell’uomo e del cittadino del 26 agosto 1789 afferma: «Una società, nella quale la garanzia dei diritti non sia assicurata e la separazione dei poteri fissata, non ha una Costituzione». Non per questo la Rivoluzione francese riuscì a garantirli, essendo priva di un organismo, indipendente dalle maggioranze temporanee e provvisorie, che potesse impedire abusi e oppressione da parte di tali maggioranze. Secondo i giacobini, che seguivano le teorie illuministiche di Jean-Jacques Rousseau sulla «volontà generale», essa non poteva che manifestarsi attraverso l’Assemblea nazionale, intesa come corpo rappresentativo dell’intera cittadinanza.

I princìpi della Rivoluzione francese continuarono a diffondersi con Napoleone, seppure il condottiero corso sia stato autore di una svolta autoritaria, e la Restaurazione non riuscì ad impedirne la rivendicazione popolare, fino alla concessione di costituzioni ottriate ed al definitivo avvento delle democrazie parlamentari, che pongono la libertà di espressione tra i diritti fondamentali che lo stato ha l’obbligo di garantire.

Risalendo il fiume della storia ritroviamo sempre una contrapposizione tra diritto e forza o tra legge positiva (nomos) e legge della natura (physis), ma constatiamo che entrambe le prospettive e le pratiche del diritto sono efficaci, se è vero che gli esseri umani non hanno sino ad ora abbandonato né l’una né l’altra prospettiva argomentativa sull’origine e sul fondamento della legge. Ma da dove viene il diritto?

È possibile tentare di giustificare i diritti umani a partire da Dio, dalla Natura, dallo stato, persino dalla Storia o dalle consuetudini. Forse una più modesta argomentazione potrebbe individuare nei diritti costituzionalmente garantiti e protetti un rimedio, uno strumento di difesa nei confronti di abusi che si sono storicamente realizzati. Nulla di sacro o naturale, dunque, bensì una debole, ma imprescindibile, forma di difesa, la quale andrà a sua volta difesa contro i tentativi di utilizzarla per fini contrari a quelli per cui è stata codificata (come le più recenti dichiarazioni dei diritti non mancano di constatare).

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion encompasses a wide range of religious and non-religious beliefs as well as philosophical and ethical convictions. The legal recognition of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is often met with scepticism by religious traditionalists, in fear that it can undermine the role of religion by recognising pluralism and equating religious with other beliefs. The more liberal have displayed similar doubts as to the implications of embracing religious freedom in secular European societies. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is perhaps one of the most controversial rights in international human rights law and has divided scholars and practitioners alike for years. This article does not delve into the depths of scholarly debate on the controversial aspects of Article 9 ECHR, but it rather aims to outline the current position of the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe's primary judicial organ, that has explored through its jurisprudence some of the most provocative social issues that relate to thought, conscience and religion.

Aggiornamento gennaio  2022….. oltre lo lasciamo all’Immaginazione Intuitiva
Postfazione: iniziamo dalla fine, poi -chi lo desidera- potrà approfondire, valutare, giudicare. Questo documento, redatto a partire dall 2021,  è stato scritto non tanto per i contemporanei, quanto per i posteri. E’ un contributo per la Storia, quando si analizzeranno gli eventi da un’ottica distaccata dalle passioni profane e dai condizionamenti di vario ordine del momento.
I contemporanei potranno utilizzarlo come esercizio di libero arbitrio basato sulla verifica puntuale dei dati e delle fonti citate.
Due sole certezze, a due anni dallo scatenamento di questa ‘strana’ pandemia annunciata’:
Non abbiamo ancora certezza e prove definitive, verificabili  ed inoppugnabili, di ‘dove e come’ il covid-19 abbia avuto l’effettiva genesi e le cause di essa.
Non abbiamo ancora certezza e prove definitive dell’esistenza di una ‘cura’ efficace, risolutiva, condivisibile che rispetti il comandamento fondamentale: ‘primum non nocere’.

Covid-19, Delta, Omicron, (πεῖ, ῥῶ, σῖγμα…. Ὦμέγα?). Green-pass (?) And Freedom.
Beyond Orwell… Great Reset and New World Order: A Disturbing Future?
Afterword: let's start from the end, then - whoever wishes - will be able to deepen, evaluate, judge. This document, drawn up in 2021, was written not so much for contemporaries as for posterity. It is a contribution to history, when events are analyzed from a perspective detached from the profane passions and conditioning of various orders of the moment.
Contemporaries will be able to use it as an exercise of free will based on the timely verification of the data and sources cited.
Only two certainties, two years after the unleashing of this' strange 'pandemic announced':
We still do not have certainty and definitive, verifiable and incontrovertible proofs of 'where and how' covid-19 had its actual genesis and causes.
We still do not have certainty and definitive proofs of the existence of an effective, decisive, shareable 'cure' that respects the fundamental commandment: 'primum non nocere'.

Covid-19, Delta, Omicron, (πεῖ, ῥῶ, …. Ὦμέγα?). Green-pass (?) Et Liberté.
Au-delà d'Orwell Grande réinitialisation et nouvel ordre mondial : un avenir inquiétant ?
Postface : commençons par la fin, puis - qui voudra - pourra approfondir, évaluer, juger. Ce document, rédigé en 2021, a été écrit moins pour les contemporains que pour la postérité. C'est une contribution à l'histoire, lorsque les événements sont analysés dans une perspective détachée des passions et des conditionnements profanes des divers ordres du moment.
Les contemporains pourront l'utiliser comme un exercice de libre arbitre basé sur la vérification en temps opportun des données et des sources citées.
Seulement deux certitudes, deux ans après le déclenchement de cette 'étrange' pandémie annoncée' :
Nous n'avons toujours pas de certitude et de preuves définitives, vérifiables et incontestables de « où et comment » covid-19 a eu sa genèse et ses causes réelles.
Nous n'avons toujours pas de certitudes et de preuves définitives de l'existence d'une « cure » efficace, décisive, partageable qui respecte le commandement fondamental : « primum non nocere ».


Covid-19, Delta, Omicron, (πεῖ, ῥῶ, σῖγμα…. Ὦμέγα?). Green-pass (?) Y Libertad.
Más allá de Orwell ... Gran reinicio y nuevo orden mundial: ¿un futuro inquietante?Epílogo: empecemos por el final, entonces, quien quiera, podrá profundizar, evaluar, juzgar. Este documento, elaborado en 2021, no fue escrito tanto para los contemporáneos como para la posteridad. Es un aporte a la historia, cuando los hechos se analizan desde una perspectiva desvinculada de las pasiones profanas y condicionamientos de diversos órdenes del momento.
Los contemporáneos podrán utilizarlo como un ejercicio de libre albedrío basado en la verificación oportuna de los datos y fuentes citadas.
Solo dos certezas, dos años después del desencadenamiento de esta 'extraña' pandemia anunciada ':
Todavía no tenemos certeza y pruebas definitivas, verificables e incontrovertibles de 'dónde y cómo' covid-19 tuvo su génesis y causas reales.
Aún no tenemos certezas y pruebas definitivas de la existencia de una 'cura' eficaz, decisiva, compartible que respete el mandamiento fundamental: 'primum non nocere'.

In the Western World, Universities have been held in high regard as institutes of higher learning where complex and at times highly controversial ideas could be openly critiqued and studied from the vantage point of neutrality. Yet, proud traditions of open discourse are slowly being eroded by those who do not desire open inquiry and who insist that academia bow to a narrow, pseudoscientific and flawed view of the world, all without the ability to even dare question its validity. Even once proud Universities have begun to succumb to this intellectual rot, the giants of education, the University of Oxford which dates to at least 1167 (Oxford, 2018), and University of Cambridge have discarded their traditions of open inquiry and lay prostrate before destructive ideologies that pit men and women against each other, and drive a wedge deeper between already unstable race relations (Cambridge Equality & Diversity, 2020). Across the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK, universities have slowly but surely begun to bow to the intellectually immature rather than uphold freedom
of speech, open inquiry and freedom of thought. The history of open inquiry and free speech in academia has been a centuries long battle, a battle between those who desire to think and those who desire to tell others what to think. For centuries those who would censor academic inquiry have recycled the same methodologies to intimidate and de-platform those who would not follow the narrative. Today, large swathes of academia have already succumbed to the relentless tide of Philistinism. Academia has become the proverbial canary in the coal mine and what happens in universities is of great importance as they are a microcosm of what wider society will inevitably become

Premise: we are in kaliyuga, the age of dissolution; as researchers engaged in the Way of the ONE Tradition, we consider everything that pertains to the profane manifestation (what is normally defined as 'objective reality', that is, pertaining to the material dimension) as a limited and limiting aspect of a deeper dimension, that of the higher states of Being and Existence. The profane-material manifestation is intrinsically linked and bound to the duality that constitutes its 'engine': we are totally and irreversibly distant from it. As researchers, while starting from the profane and dual dimension, we are committed to operating a process of self-purification by which, by separating the thick (profane-material) from the subtle (Higher Essence of Existence), we are led to reject and overcome every duality by seeking the 'golden thread' of equanimity. Trying to vivify the duty of non-action, with detachment from the passions and sophisms on which duality feeds. It is a path of roughing in which, of course, doubts arise. They are constructive doubts, aimed at purifying us of any form of dogmatism, sectarianism or profane passion dictated by the Ego. It is therefore good to emphasize that with the term 'doubt' we intend to allude to a positive and proactive path in which 'doubt' can and must be overcome and dissolved. This is the meaning with which the term 'doubt' is used in this contribution; remaining excluded - a priori - any meaning referable to 'sterile and unproductive doubt', a typical manifestation of profane sloth. The following are fragments of the 'manifestation' in which we are immersed; fragments that - like splinters - try to mislead us from the Path, to disturb our work. Their sharing stems from the unresolved 'doubt' between the degradation of reasoning and the not completely clear presence of motivations located on a higher and more complex level than the immediately perceptible one. We are unable to give an answer, so the question remains open. Sharing as a proposal without expectations.

We continue to observe astonished, perplexed and worried what is happening around us.
Traveling an existential path that proceeds beyond the appearance of material reality, as perceived by our (imperfect) physical body does not exclude observation, as fair as possible and detached from events. We have not chosen to live in an isolated hermitage, but to walk the path while remaining immersed in human society. For this we return to the subject, to leave a testimony. Ours is a choice of action rather than non-action. We do not claim to be understood, at least by those who live exclusively the profane dimension of being. Simply, without further comments, we consider it a welcome duty to point out that we are far from a situation with clear, defined, understandable outlines. Above all, we are far from the common feeling of being shared. As has always happened in human evolution, sometimes the 'other' thought, discordant from the certainties conveyed by those who at the precise historical moment have the power to control 'communication', is marginalized and derided. Plato, with Letter VII, gave an unsurpassed synthesis.
The doubt that the pandemic is also seized as a 'great opportunity' to dissolve representative democracy (as explicitly theorized for years by the strong powers) is legitimate, at least until the contrary is proven with facts.
So, without comments, we testify of some voices that, being out of the crowd, are clearly marginalized. We have no pre-established truths to sell, we intend to convince anyone.
Simply propose listening ... they are voices that belong to various sectors of society, often distant from each other but all united by a common doubt: what future awaits us in a world dominated by globalizing finance?
Leaving reflections, evaluations and judgments to those who have had an interest in listening, perhaps without preconceptions or preconceived 'filters'.
Is it lawful and up to when will it be allowed to ask ourselves what future awaits us? Who is planning it? How is the meaning of 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' changing? Is Humanity evolving towards a greater widespread existential awareness or is it heading towards an alienating abyss with a disturbing profile?
We do not give answers, we ask questions (at least as long as we are allowed to do so).

Premessa: siamo nel kaliyuga, l’età della dissoluzione; in quanto ricercatori impegnati nella Via della Tradizione UNA, consideriamo tutto ciò che attiene la manifestazione profana (quella che normalmente viene definita ‘realtà oggettiva’, ovvero attinente la dimensione materiale) come aspetto limitato e limitante di una dimensione più profonda, quella degli stati superiori dell’Essere e dell’Esistenza. La manifestazione profana-materiale è intrinsecamente legata e vincolata alla dualità che ne costituisce il ‘motore’: siamo totalmente ed irreversibilmente distanti da essa.  Come ricercatori,  pur partendo dalla dimensione profana e duale, siamo impegnati ad operare un processo di auto-purificazione mediante il quale, separando lo spesso (profano-materiale) dal sottile (Essenza superiore dell’Esistenza), siamo portati a rifiutare e superare ogni dualità ricercando il ‘filo d’oro’ dell’equanimità. Cercando di vivificare il dovere della non-azione, con distacco dalle passioni e dai sofismi di cui la dualità si nutre. E’ un percorso di sgrossamento nel quale, naturalmente, scaturiscono dubbi. Sono dubbi costruttivi, tesi a depurarci da ogni forma di dogmatismo, settarismo o passione profana dettata dall’Ego. E’ bene quindi sottolineare che con il termine ‘dubbio’ intendiamo alludere ad un percorso positivo e propositivo nel quale il ‘dubbio’ può e deve essere superato e dissolto. Tale è l’accezione con la quale in termine ‘dubbio’ è utilizzato in questo contributo; restando esclusa – a priori – ogni significato riferibile al ‘dubbio sterile ed improduttivo’, manifestazione tipica dell’ignavia profana. Quelli che seguono sono frammenti della ‘manifestazione’ nella quale siamo immersi; frammenti che – come schegge – tentano di fuorviarci dal Sentiero, di disturbare il nostro lavoro.  La loro condivisione scaturisce dal ‘dubbio’ irrisolto tra il degrado del raziocinio e la presenza non completamente chiara di motivazioni situate su un piamo più elevato e complesso di quello immediatamente percepibile. Non siamo in grado di dare un risposta, quindi il dubbio resta aperto. Condivisione come proposta senza aspettative.

Continuiamo ad osservare attoniti, perplessi e preoccupati ciò che accade intorno a noi.
Percorrere un cammino esistenziale che procede oltre l’apparenza della realtà materiale, così come è percepita dal nostro (imperfetto) corpo fisico non esclude l’osservazione, per quanto possibile equanime e distaccata dagli eventi. Non abbiamo scelto di vivere in un eremo isolato, ma di percorrere il cammino restando comunque immersi nella società umana. Per questo torniamo sull’argomento, per lasciare una testimonianza. La nostra è una scelta dell’azione della non-azione. Non pretendiamo di essere compresi, almeno da parte di coloro che vivono esclusivamente la dimensione profana dell’essere. Semplicemente, senza ulteriori commenti, riteniamo un gradito dovere far presente che siamo ben lontani da una situazione dai contorni chiari, definiti, comprensibili. Soprattutto siamo ben lontani dal comune sentire condiviso. Come è sempre accaduto nell’evoluzione umana, a volte il pensiero ‘altro’, discordante dalle certezze veicolate da chi nel preciso momento storico ha il potere di controllare la ‘comunicazione’, viene emarginato e deriso. Platone, con la Lettera VII, ne ha dato una sintesi insuperata.
Il dubbio che la pandemia sia anche colta come una ‘grande opportunità’ per dissolvere la democrazia rappresentativa (come teorizzato esplicitamente da anni dai poteri forti) è legittimo, almeno fino a quando non sarà dimostrato con i fatti il contrario.
Quindi, senza commenti, rendiamo testimonianza di alcune voci che, essendo fuori dal coro, sono con tutta evidenza emarginate. Non abbiamo verità precostituite da vendere, ne intendiamo convincere nessuno.
Semplicemente proporre l’ascolto……sono voci che appartengono a vari settori della società, spesso lontani tra loro ma tutti accomunati da un dubbio comune: quale futuro ci attende in un mondo dominato dalla finanza globalizzante?
Lasciando riflessioni, valutazioni e giudizi a coloro che avranno avuto interesse ad ascoltare, magari senza preconcetti ne ‘filtri’ precostituiti.
E’ lecito e fino a quando sarà consentito chiedersi quale futuro ci attende? Chi lo sta pianificando? Come sta mutando il significato di ‘Libertà’ e di ‘Democrazia’ ? L’Umanità sta evolvendo verso una maggiore consapevolezza esistenziale diffusa o si sta dirigendo verso un abisso alienante dal profilo inquietante?
Non diamo risposte, poniamo interrogativi (almeno fino a quando ci sarà consentito farlo).

Hobbes’s political philosophy starts from a number of premises that are supposed to be self-evident, supplemented by various observations from experience. These statements are examined critically and in their interrelatedness in order to find out to what extent Hobbes provides a convincing system of thought. The importance of the basis of man’s actions, his self-interest, is inquired, since it serves as the basis of his practical philosophy. After this, Hobbes’s views on ‘moral’ notions are expounded. As it turns out, Hobbes maintains a number of concepts that have such a connotation, but interprets these in a specific way. The article is concluded with a modest systematic reconstruction of Hobbes’s main thoughts in practical philosophy.

WE DO NOT WANT US TO KNOW THAT WE ARE GOD.
JESUS IS AN EXTENSION OF THE GOD OUTSIDE OF US DESIGN FEATURE OF THIS SKID MARK,  WHICH IS A GOOD TRICK BECAUSE THE JESUS / VISHNU ENERGY HOLDS THE IMAGE INFO THAT MAKES EVERYTHING.  WHY WOULD WE KNOWINGLY TAKE AN ENERGY FORM THAT PERMEATES ALL THINGS AND EXTERNALIZE IT??  HUH??  MAKING IT LIKE UNATTAINABLE, WHEN IN FACT, IT IS THE ROOT SOURCE OF FORM.  ANSWER:  SEPARATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES.

Paper regarding the idea of "religious tolerance" as propaganda designed to just let religion continue to do harm to society and destroy lives. See my paper 'Religion Is Not Benign' in order to better understand this paper:
http://www.academia.edu/11700742/Religion_Is_Not_Benign

Résumé (English abstract below) : Cette recherche porte sur les thèses défendues au sein du projet de l’Iṣlāḥ et plus particulièrement sur le traitement de la notion du pouvoir. Elle vise une compréhension du mouvement de réforme du XIXe siècle initié par Ǧamal ad-Dīn al-Afġāni (1838-1897), Muḥammad ‘Abduh (1849-1905) et ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān al-Kawākibī (1855-1902) dans sa globalité, en apportant une grille de lecture transversale. Il en ressort une tentative de hiérarchisation, de structuration des protagonistes et des idées au regard des objectifs du mouvement de réforme et de l’importance qu’il leur accorde.
Cette étude se concentre sur le mouvement de réforme, motivé par le constat d’une décadence du monde arabo-musulman à plusieurs niveaux. Cette réflexion des réformateurs débute par une analyse des causes de cet état décadent, mettant en avant plusieurs raisons et aboutissant à une synthétisation de celles-ci en deux types de causes majeurs : les causes religieuses de la décadence et les effets du despotisme.
Cet état des lieux, énumérant les faiblesses et incohérences de la pensée religieuse d’une part et débattant de la légitimité du pouvoir politique et de la pertinence de son action d’autre part, conduit les réformateurs à lancer une déconstruction du pouvoir religieux visant une libération de la pensée islamique de logiques dogmatiques établies qui agissent comme des carcans qui figent la réflexion, ainsi que la proposition d’une théologie du libre-arbitre poussant le peuple à sortir de sa léthargie.
En plus de traiter les causes religieuses de la décadence, l’autre pan de la réflexion de ces penseurs est la réforme de la pensée politique, qui passe à l’époque d’un Empire Ottoman en déclin par la restauration du califat dont ils cherchent à repenser la légitimité et les champs d’action. L’étude comparative entre la vision de ‘Abduh et d’al-Kawākibī sur le sujet permet de comprendre la complexité du mouvement de réforme et ouvre la voie aux débats sur le califat avant son abolition en 1924 par le parlement turc. Les débats auxquels participent Rašīd Riḍā, Abd al-Razzāq Sanhoury, Ibn Badīs et surtout ‘Alī ‘Abd ar-Rāziq à travers son ouvrage al-Islām wa ’asās al-Ḥukm (1925) donnent un aperçu des polémiques qui accompagnent la chute du califat et illustrent l’essoufflement de l’élan de réforme qui ne dépassera pas le stade de « projet » et dont se revendiquent divers courants du XXe siècle.

THE NOTION OF POWER ACCORDING TO THE ISLAH PROJECT
Abstract : This research deals with the theses defended among the Iṣlāḥ project, especially with the notion of power. It aims at an overall understanding of 19th century reform movement initiated by al-Afġāni (1838-1897), ‘Abduh (1849-1905) and al-Kawākibī (1855-1902), bringing a cross-disciplinary analysis grid. It results on an attempt to sort out and structure these actors along with their ideas in light of the goals they intended to reach.
The reform movement was first motivated by the observation of a decadent Arab and Muslim world on many levels, which gave birth to an analysis of the causes of this state and sorting them into two main categories: religion and despotism. Hence the debunking of the religious power these thinkers launched in order to free Islamic thought of fetters preventing scholars and people from thinking.
Furthermore, the reform movement aimed also at liberating the political thought, which then needed a revival of the caliphate according to them. Comparing 'Abduh's and al-Kawākibī's approaches complexifies the reading of that reform movement and gives the underlying arguments to the later debates upon the califate status. Rašīd Riḍā, Abd al-Razzāq Sanhoury, Ibn Badīs and most importantly ‘Alī ‘Abd ar-Rāziq thanks to his al-Islām wa ’asās al-Ḥukm (1925) inherited and extended this debate which illustrated the loss of impetus of the Iṣlāḥ movement, thus considered as a mere project.

The task to reshape governments in the countries confronted with the Arab Spring prompts the question whether there are necessary conditions to realize a stable society that simultaneously seeks to eliminate the elements that have led to the uprisings. Acknowledging some constitutional rights seems indispensable in such a process. I argue that such a state of affairs is indeed the case, at least now that the ‘old’ justifications to differentiate between people do not suffice anymore. That is not to say that the countries involved will have identical laws in each respect, but merely that a common basis has to be realized, manifested in political and legal equality, so this given does not derogate from the fact that each country’s specific legislation needs to be shaped in the light of its own history. Such a basis has no ‘moral’ character, but is simply a necessary condition to prevent sedition.

IT WAS IMPRESSED ON ME TO EXPOSE THE PUPPET NATURE OF HUMAN EXISTENCE, WHEN ALONG CAME AN ECKHART TOLLE VIDEO THAT NAILS IT, WITH THIS: 

THE BEGINNING OF FREEDOM IS LEARNING AND ADMITTING THAT WE ARE MICRO-CONTROLLED PUPPETS OF OUR PURE CONSCIOUSNESS.  IN HERE IS EXACTLY HOW THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED.

Si, de nos jours, la communication prend souvent des voies informatiques, la presse règnait en maître, il y a un siècle. La presse de propagande, aisée d'accès et bon marché, occupait une place déterminante dans la diffusion des idées. En témoigne la "Bibliothèque de Propagande", outil efficace au service de la libre pensée.

If anarchism is a spirit, it is the spirit of revolt. For those unfamiliar with the actual content of anarchism or the enabling possibilities of revolt this statement might appear doubly negative. Just as so much of the contemporary discourse surrounding anarchism is framed by derision and a seemingly wilful confusion of what the idea represents, so too has the idea of revolt been read though an unfavourable lens. What happens when we shatter that lens, thus allowing the light of revolt to refract in new ways that illuminate a path toward freedom? We want to create freedom in our lives, to bring the poetic joy of being in the world to each moment of breath, and to fill the spaces of our existence with a deep and unshakable love for the mystery known as ‘life’. To do this requires us to revolt. To bring light we must pursue a trajectory that refuses the darkness, death, and dismay of the age we live in. The challenges of our time require us to rebel against the disabling faith in the idea that oppression, hierarchy, and captivity are somehow the natural consequences of human evolution. Our revolt is our emancipation. It is the aperture through which the light of freedom passes, revealing a full spectrum of colour, wonder, and imagination. Yet this sentiment of revolt should not be conceived as a transcendental moment, as it is much more accurate to envision revolution as a politics of the everyday, a product of immanence. Accordingly, because our lives are lived in the here of this space and the now of this moment, it is only in the ongoing enactment of our actual daily performances that freedom itself is called into being. But these ordinary routines can’t be any presentation, for performances are multiple and they can just as often be cruel as they can be compassionate. To pursue revolt then is to practice freedom, and it is our contention that to practice freedom is to perform anarchism.

S. Kowalska, From the Forum Internum to Pluralism – Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion in a Socio-Legal Perspective, [in:] T. Huzarek, J. Wółkowski (eds.), Educational Challenges of Religious Freedom, Wydawnictwo „Bernardinum”, Pelplin 2021, pp. 231-250

Il volume ripercorre la genesi e l’evoluzione delle libertà di manifestazione del pensiero negli ordinamenti politici, a partire del V secolo a.C., analizzando, nel contesto storico, gli aspetti filosofici e giuridici di quello che è divenuto oggi un diritto fondamentale riconosciuto a livello internazionale. L’opera analizza, quindi, il connubio indissolubile tra libertà di stampa e costituzionalismo ed limiti alla libertà di manifestazione del pensiero, in particolare in relazione all’istituto della privacy. L’evoluzione millenaria del pensiero filosofico, politico e del diritto, a partire dalla pòlis greca, ha portato a considerare il diritto a manifestare liberamente il pensiero con la parola, con lo scritto e con ogni altro mezzo di comunicazione (art. 21 Cost. italiana), tra i diritti naturali (e per questo fondamentali). Non si tratta di un diritto riconosciuto ai soli cittadini di uno Stato, ma a tutti gli uomini. La libertà di manifestazione del pensiero è riconosciuta da tutte le moderne Costituzioni adottate degli Stati democratici, sancita dalla Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell’uomo dell’Onu del 1948 e tutelata dalla Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali del 1950 e dal Patto internazionale di New York sui diritti civili e politici del 1966. L’affermazione di questo diritto è frutto di un percorso durato duemila e cinquecento anni, a partire dalla Grecia del V secolo a.C. (contrapposizione nomos e physis), passando per la Rivoluzione francese ed il periodo napoleonico, che hanno segnato la conquista definitiva della libertà di opinione, divenuta nel frattempo libertà di stampa.

Being researchers of the Traditional Way, we are aware of it, is not easy. Plato, in Letter VII had expressed it in a masterly way, which does not exempt us from pursuing it, always maintaining an equitable and detached vision. So where there are simple 'data' we cannot fail to take them into consideration, without dogmatism or preconceptions (let alone conditioning).

Etre chercheurs de la Voie Traditionnelle, nous en sommes conscients, n'est pas facile. Platon, dans la lettre VII, l'avait exprimé magistralement, qui ne nous dispense pas de le poursuivre, en maintenant toujours une vision équitable et détachée. Alors là où il y a des « données » simples, on ne peut manquer de les prendre en considération, sans dogmatisme ni a priori (et encore moins conditionnement).

Ser investigadores del Camino Tradicional, somos conscientes de ello, no es fácil. Platón, en la Carta VII lo había expresado de manera magistral,  lo que no nos exime de perseguirlo, manteniendo siempre una visión equitativa y desapegada. Así que donde hay simples 'datos' no podemos dejar de tenerlos en cuenta, sin dogmatismos ni preconceptos (y mucho menos condicionamientos).

Wir sind uns dessen bewusst, dass es nicht einfach ist, Forscher des Traditionellen Weges zu sein. Platon hatte es in Brief VII meisterhaft ausgedrückt, das uns nicht davon befreit, es zu verfolgen, immer eine gerechte und distanzierte Vision beizubehalten. Wo es also einfache „Daten“ gibt, können wir sie ohne Dogmatismus oder Vorurteile (geschweige denn Konditionierung) berücksichtigen.
RICHIESTA DI INTERVENTO UMANITARIO PER L’ITALIA.
Fonte: Umanità e Ragione Associazione per la Tutela dei Diritti Umani http://umanitaeragione.eu
L’Associazione Umanità e Ragione, a nome di tutti i cittadini discriminati e perseguitati, ha inviato una richiesta di aiuto internazionale per denunciare la violazione dei diritti umani in Italia e sollecitare un intervento umanitario da parte della Comunità internazionale finalizzato al ripristino della legalità e della democrazia. La comunicazione è stata previamente inviata all’Alto Commissariato per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite ed al Segretario Generale del Consiglio d’Europa. È stata poi trasmessa ai principali partiti ed organi di governo dei Paesi esteri.
REQUEST FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION FOR ITALY.
For the last two years, the Italian government has adopted a series of emergency regulatory measures that directly contrast the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as with the Italian Constitution. First and foremost, they directly or indirectly oblige millions of Italian citizens and foreigners residing in Italy to consent to a vaccination for which complete clinical data on safety and efficacy are not available. Furthermore, the decision to undergo this procedure cannot be considered “informed” in any way since clinical staff do not have access to complete clinical data regarding its safety and efficacy. These acts have been enacted by the President of the Republic and ratified by Parliament, with the acquiescence of a part of the judiciary and full support of the media.
DEMANDE D’INTERVENTION HUMANITAIRE POUR L’ITALIE.
Au cours des deux dernières années, le Gouvernement Italien a adopté de nombreuses mesures réglementaires d’urgence qui se posent gravement en conflit avec le Code de Nuremberg, la Déclaration d’Helsinki et le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, ainsi qu’avec la Constitution de la République Italienne, puisque: 1) ces mesures obligent directement ou indirectement des millions de citoyens, ainsi que des milliers de citoyens étrangers résidents en Italie, à se soumettre à l’inoculation d’un médicament pour lequel les données provenant d’essais cliniques complets sur la sécurité et l’efficacité ne sont pas disponibles, en punissant par la perte de l’emploi, du revenu, de l’accès à l’Education nationale et de toute activité publique et sociale tous ceux qui refusent le médicament; 2) ces mesures extorquent à millions de citoyens, ainsi qu’aux milliers de citoyens étrangers résidents en Italie, un “consensus informé” à subir le traitement de santé susmentionné, qui ne peut en aucun cas être qualifié en tant que tel ( “informé”), étant donné l’impossibilité – par le personnel médical qui administre le médicament en question – d’avoir accès aux données provenant d’essais cliniques concernant sa sécurité et son efficacité. Malgré cela, ces lois ont été promulguées par le Président de la République, ratifiées par le Parlement italien, soutenues par une partie du pouvoir judiciaire et par tous les médias mainstream nationaux.
SOLICITUD DE INTERVENCIÓN HUMANITARIA EN ITALIA.
En los últimos dos años, el Gobierno italiano ha adoptado innumerables medidas legislativas de emergencia que entran en conflicto inmediato con el Código de Nuremberg, la Declaración de Helsinki y el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, así como con la Constitución italiana, porque: 1) obligan directa o indirectamente a millones de ciudadanos y extranjeros residentes en Italia a someterse a la inoculación de un medicamento del que no se dispone de datos clínicos exhaustivos sobre su seguridad y eficacia, castigando a quienes rechazan el tratamiento con la pérdida de trabajo, ingresos, acceso a los estudios y a cualquier actividad pública y social; 2) extorsionan a millones de ciudadanos y extranjeros residentes el consentimiento para someterse al tratamiento médico antes mencionado, consentimiento que de ninguna manera puede definirse como “informado”, dada la imposibilidad de que el personal médico-investigador que suministra el medicamento en cuestión tenga acceso a la información clínica completa sobre su seguridad y eficacia. A pesar de eso, estas leyes fueron promulgadas por el Presidente de la República, ratificadas por el Parlamento italiano, apoyadas por una parte del poder judicial y por todos los medios de comunicación nacionales.AUFFORDERUNG ZUR HUMANITÄREN INTERVENTION EN ITALIEN.
In den letzten zwei Jahren hat die italienische Regierung unzählige regulatorische Notmaßnahmen ergriffen, die unmittelbar mit dem Nürnberger Kodex, der Deklaration von Helsinki und dem Internationalen Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte sowie mit der italienischen Verfassung in Konflikt geraten:
1) Direkt oder indirekt zwingt sie Millionen von Bürgern und Ausländern, die sich in Italien aufhalten, sich der Impfung mit einem Medikament zu unterziehen, für das keine umfassenden klinischen Daten zur Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit vorliegen, und bestraft diejenigen, die die Behandlung verweigern, mit dem Verlust des Arbeitsplatzes, des Einkommens, des Zugangs zum Studium und zu allen öffentlichen und sozialen Aktivitäten; 2) zu der oben genannten medizinischen Behandlung wird von Millionen italienischer Bürger und in Italien ansässiger Ausländer, die in keiner Weise als „informiert“ bezeichnet werden können, eine Einwilligungserklärung erpresst: das das betreffende Medikament versuchsweise verabreichende medizinische Personal, verfügt nicht und kann nicht über vollständige klinische Daten zu dessen Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit verfügen. Trotzdem wurden diese Gesetze vom Präsidenten der Republik erlassen, vom italienischen Parlament ratifiziert, von einem Teil der Justiz und von allen nationalen Medien unterstützt.

The last three decades have seen significant changes for higher education institutions throughout the world. The era of globalization has left little untouched and both our society and colleges and universities look, think, and operate differently as a result. Notwithstanding the movement toward global interdependence and intercultural rhetoric in mission statements, there is little in the academic literature on the topic of higher education engagement with displaced academics. This research draws on interviews with a variety of multidisciplinary scholars from around the world who have had to flee their home countries due to the political and/or ideological nature of their intellectual work, and who now hold appointments at U.S. higher education institutions through the Scholars at Risk network. This research, in turn, is framed by the following questions: How do displaced academics view academic freedom in their home countries and in the United States? What factors safeguard and/or threaten the tenets of academic freedom? What observations have displaced academics drawn from their experiences
in U.S. colleges and universities? How have displaced academics interacted with their academic communities through their teaching and research? Thematic analysis is informed by tenets of critical geography that aim to better understand the changing dynamics of a globalization era across space, place, and time, as well as a juxtaposing view of the movement of knowledge on
one hand and people on the other (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017; Massey, 2005). Findings reveal that restrictions to academic freedom range from explicit to implicit, and that implicit restrictions are a common feature of U.S. academic life. Further, to adequately understand the experiences of exile is to conceptualize a geography of mobility and immobility, where displaced academics
must contend with being removed but still connected. Knowledge production and exchange also is susceptible to mobility and immobility, and the experiences of displaced academics reveal the ways in which these barriers can be circumnavigated. Finally, displaced academics in U.S. institutions offer extraordinarily relevant perspectives on the state of U.S. higher education, and are far more valuable to their hosting communities than their academic output alone.

La monografía es una versión reducida, actualizada y revisada en profundidad de la tesis doctoral y contiene una extensa reflexión global sobre la libertad ideológica interconectando entre sí la doctrina jurisprudencial recaída sobre sus distintas manifestaciones externas para elaborar una teoría general de la libertad ideológica desde los pronunciamientos jurisprudenciales de nuestro intérprete constitucional supremo, entrando de lleno en las dos cuestiones más relevantes de la libertad ideológica, esto es, la pluralidad de proyecciones externas de la misma, que se tratan exhaustivamente, y, en segundo lugar, la definición constitucional del límite del orden público protegido por la ley. Si bien el estudio de la libertad ideológica había sido abordado desde la perspectiva penal, esta obra es la única monografía publicada en el Derecho Constitucional español que estudia singularizadamente la libertad ideológica como libertad diferenciada de la libertad religiosa y de la objeción de conciencia y constituye una aportación original de carácter doctrinal y teórico, en la medida que, si bien se toma como punto de partida el análisis sistemático de la totalidad de la jurisprudencia constitucional y del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre esta materia, es, en definitiva, un tratado completo sobre la libertad ideológica en la que la jurisprudencia es objeto de detallado análisis crítico con la finalidad de clarificar los criterios jurisprudenciales sobre este derecho y que da pie a una investigación en la que, previo estudio de las aportaciones doctrinales de la doctrina iusconstitucionalista y de disciplinas como la Filosofía del Derecho, el Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, el Derecho Administrativo y el Derecho Penal, se desarrolla una interpretación  que permite solucionar las ambigüedades y contradicciones de la jurisprudencia constitucional, especialmente en lo que se refiere al distinto régimen jurídico aplicable a la libertad de expresión en función de que se la considere o no manifestación externa de la libertad ideológica (pp. 339-397), a los límites aplicables a las libertades educativas (pp. 233-273 y 397-399) y a la problemática determinación del límite del orden público (399-457) sobre el que se elabora una construcción doctrinal propia (457-467).

This study aims to shed light on the right to information and the freedom of the media in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. Infection disease outbreaks are invariably characterized by myths and rumors, boosted by social media accounts, that media often pick up and circulate. Under the justification to avoid panic and confusion, and to combat “fake news” during the COVID-19 pandemic, some governments took emergency measures that curtail the freedom of information. The lack of a legal definition of the term “fake news” leaves room for arbitrary and broad interpretations.

Decrees issued during the state of emergency – including the practice of detaining journalists for their work and the abuse of pre-trial detention and Internet censorship – sound like measures adopted to restrict the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media, and to shout down dissenting voices. Any kind of pressure against journalists has an immediate consequence, not only on them but also on the public’s right to be informed. Media play a key role in providing important information to the public, and a pluralistic and vibrant media landscape is indispensable to any democratic society. Access to information and a free working environment are therefore essential and need to be ensured at all times, even under state of emergency. Authorities cannot invoke the state of emergency or national security as a motivation to suspend or limit fundamental human rights. The fight against COVID-19 can be a pretext for restricting civil liberties.

J. Doomen and A. Ellian (eds.), De strijd van gelijkheid en vrijheid. The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers, 2015. This study inquires the extent of freedom of expression in the present era. I wrote a chapter (pp. 107-123) and co-authored the general introduction (pp. 9-24).

The freedom of expression is a widely-accepted concept that is guaranteed under various international legal documents, as well as included in the Turkish Constitution and laws in Turkey. Caricature, which is one of the most significant manifestations of the freedom of expression, has been a weapon for the cartoonists in their challenge against the political powers. Therefore, the freedom of expression is ensured under constitutions notwithstanding, the political powers tried to suppress this weapon used by cartoonists for the continuation of their authority and reign, and did not tolerate the criticism of their imperfections.

Few concepts have proved as fertile in critical studies as the “public sphere,” yet many now regard Habermas’s concept of the public sphere as hopelessly flawed. Critics have faulted Habermas’s notion as an ideal fiction, exclusive rather than inclusive; they have challenged his dating of the public sphere’s emergence to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, noting that earlier periods witnessed robust public debate; and they have questioned the evidence on which Habermas bases his argument, including his claims about increased literacy, the beginnings of professional authorship, and, perhaps most important, the collapse of censorship. In my paper, I defend a modified version of Habermas’s public sphere. I argue not only that the permanent lapse of the Licensing Act in 1695 had a profound impact on both the public discourse and the publishing world in Britain, but also, against Macaulay and most modern scholars, that the press freedom that followed was no mere accident. By canvassing free speech debates from the period and by drawing on extensive statistics concerning publication patterns before and after 1695, I show that the Licensing Act’s expiry did indeed permit a public sphere to develop, along the lines delineated by Habermas.

Hate and fear are negative but very powerful influences on human beings. Islamophobia is hate for and fear of Islam. Like every human-feeling hate, fear and anger are not evil in themselves. After all we should hate crime, fear consequences off ill deeds and feel anger on injustice. But should we hate and fear Islam? If yes, then what in Islam should we fear and if no, then those who do hate Islam – why they do so? Is there a way-out of this?

The essay “Power” was first published in Emerson’s 1860 book of essays, The Conduct of Life. It there follows the more famous essay “Fate.” Having rejected passive fatalism in the opening essay, Emerson leaves the reader in no doubt on the existence of distinctively human powers. Human powers always have their limits, and if “we thought men were free in the sense, that, in a single exception one fantastical will could prevail over the law of things,” and “as if a child’s hand could pull down the sun,” then such freedom would derange the “beautiful necessity” and the “order of nature.” But “all successful men have agreed in one thing,—they were causationists. They believed that things went not by luck, but by law.” Though limited at any given time, human powers and freedom—an expanded sphere of action—always remain open, and for Emerson,” the revelation of Thought takes man out of servitude into freedom”;. nature to be commanded must first be obeyed. Understanding the laws of nature, we can harness them for our own purposes. But, “If thought makes free, so does the moral sentiment.” and “we can see that with the perception of truth is joined the desire that it shall prevail. That affection is essential to will.” Intellect linked to moral sentiment and building into the organization of will produces character and renders Emersonian “power” an account of human virtue. Clinging to our own insights, our will and character are molded by the reality uncovered. “Of two men, each obeying his own thought, he whose thought is deepest will be the strongest character.” “There are times, indeed,” wrote John Dewey in 1903, “when one is inclined to regard Emerson’s whole work as a hymn to intelligence, a paean to the all-creating, all-disturbing power of thought.” Dewey recognized too, the “final word of Emerson’s philosophy:” “the identity of Being, unqualified and immutable, with Character.” “This is Emerson’s revelation:” said William James in the same year: “The point of any pen can be an epitome of reality; the commonest person’s act, if genuinely actuated, can lay hold of eternity.” –HGC

Malgré l'intérêt unanime vis-à-vis des concepts d’Ethique et de
Liberté, les différents héritages socioculturels maintiennent jusqu’à nos jours un clivage important entre différentes prises de position  relatives aux problèmes posés par le développement sociétal et l’impact des nouvelles technologies sur la vie des hommes. On pourrait dire que le vingtième siècle est le siècle non seulement de changements importants et profonds aux niveaux des sciences, des sciences appliquées et des sciences humaines et sociales, mais aussi que c’est le
siècle des défis lancés dans toutes les directions, de leurs retombées et des réactions auxquelles ils ont donné lieu.

La complémentarité de ces deux concepts, quand il s’agit de la personne humaine comme monôme sociétal, explique ce double intérêt. En effet, la Liberté est cet élément intrinsèque qui permet à la personne humaine de se définir à partir de son « choix libre », alors que l’Ethique est l’élément extrinsèque qui
régit les aspects relationnels dans ce qu’ils ont d’absolu. Ceci explique pourquoi ces deux concepts se sont développés  constamment avec le temps. Jusqu’à nos jours ce développement est sujet à des débats sans fin et à des remises en cause permanentes.

En ce début du  vingt et unième siècle, le débat reste grand ouvert particulièrement au niveau de la réflexion théologique : Où se place cette réflexion dans le cadre général du débat sur l’homme et sa Liberté ? Du débat sur l’Ethique et l’impact du sociétal sur le développement de la pensée religieuse à
cet égard? Du débat sur le regard critique à avoir vis-à-vis des prises de position considérées jusque là comme immuables et incontournables à partir d’une vision « évangélique » du monde.

To have a freedom is a desire of every living organisms particularly on freedom of expression. This is undebatable because it is from such freedom people get to explain and know the concerns of others, so that they can be able to provide or be given an assistance when available and when required to do so. However, the same freedom has to be exercise to the extent of not affecting other existing freedoms and rights such as the right to privacy.

Coming of digital environment have transform the means on how freedom of expression is exercise and protected. Tanzanian laws have responded to these digital changes by involving digital laws such as The Tanzania Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Contents) Regulation of 2018; Cyber Crime Act, No.13 of 2015, and Media Service Act, No.12 of 2016.

However, despite of this involvement of digital laws there have been a number of claims upon some of their provisions on infringement of constitutional rights such as freedom of expression and privacy.
This manuscript entails to provide analysis of the above-mentioned laws principally on evaluating their reflection towards freedom of speech/expression and privacy to online users.

The essay “Power” was first published in Emerson’s 1860 book of essays, The Conduct of Life. It there follows the more famous essay “Fate.” Having rejected passive fatalism in the opening essay, Emerson leaves the reader in no doubt on the existence of distinctively human powers. Human powers always have their limits, and if “we thought men were free in the sense, that, in a single exception one fantastical will could prevail over the law of things,” and “as if a child’s hand could pull down the sun,” then such freedom would derange the “beautiful necessity” and the “order of nature.” But “all successful men have agreed in one thing,—they were causationists. They believed that things went not by luck, but by law.” Though limited at any given time, human powers and freedom—an expanded spheres of action—always remain open, and for Emerson,” the revelation of Thought takes man out of servitude into freedom”;. nature to be commanded must first be obeyed. Understanding the laws of nature, we can harness them for our own purposes. But, “If thought makes free, so does the moral sentiment.” and “we can see that with the perception of truth is joined the desire that it shall prevail. That affection is essential to will.” Intellect linked to moral sentiment and building into the organization of will produces character and renders Emersonian “power” an account of human virtue.
Clinging to our own insights, our will and character are molded by the reality uncovered. “Of two men, each obeying his own thought, he whose thought is deepest will be the strongest character.” “There are times,
indeed,” wrote John Dewey in 1903, “when one is inclined to regard Emerson’s whole work as a hymn to intelligence, a paean to the all-creating, all-disturbing power of thought.” Dewey recognized too, the “final word of Emerson’s philosophy:” “the identity of Being, unqualified and immutable, with Character.” “This is Emerson’s revelation:” said William James in the same year: “The point of any pen can be an epitome of reality; the commonest person’s act, if genuinely actuated, can lay hold of eternity.” –HGC

Freedom as a pedagogical focus is about the deepest echelons of our everyday reality.
In its dismaying dialectic, COVID’s oppressive lockdown has also turned some lights on inside our heads about what freedom is and isn’t. This article seeks to offer some ideas on stimulating colleagues and their students, even quite young, thinking about how free or unfree we are or should be, also in a virtual metaverse. What rights need expansion, constitutional guarantees? These are questions kids can be asking as well. A critical core thread running through the reflections here is: It’s about people and their daily lives and stories, simple people resisting, together, galvanizing something new. The article underscores the core need to recognize, render visible and confront power inequalities, injustices, rights inequities, also climate catastrophe and its fallout on human existence and all existence, human rights and freedoms, and Nature’s rights.

: Strategists have discussed American Grand Strategy, or the lack of one, since the end of the Cold War. This paper will use a mirror strategy to show that the U.S. has a Grand Strategy based on liberties and freedoms. It will do this by looking through history at the founding documents, presidential messaging! US law, and US treaties. It will then tie elements of national power to these individual liberties.

Infection disease outbreaks are invariably characterized by myths and rumors, boosted by social media accounts, that media often pick up and circulate. On the grounds of protecting public health in the context of the covid-19 pandemic, some Member States of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe imposed strict rules on the dissemination of “fake news”. This paper reviews the outbreak communication principles established by the World Health Organization and checks the compliance of emergency legislation, adopted under the pretext of combating misinformation and disinformation, against fundamental human rights.

This essay develops a normative argument against Michael Perry's approach to religious freedom. According to Perry, the right to religious freedom should be expanded into a claim upon liberal democracies to religious and moral freedom. In other words, one should be free to practice one's morality, whether or not it is grounded in the transcendent. This paper argues instead that religious freedom cannot be protected by the same legal paradigm as moral freedom because religion and morality affect legal systems in different ways. Religious freedom and moral freedom are different ontological realities and therefore require different treatments under law. Religion is detachable from political communities; morality is not: political communities are by definition moral communities. Perry's expansion promotes moral permissive-ness and slows and hinders the right development of religious and moral values in political societies. His approach ultimately identifies moral freedom with free morality and coercively imposes a particular model of morality: namely, a liberal one. In place of Perry's expansion, this paper proposes a new expansion of religious liberty along different lines: a more specific legal distinction between the " right to religion, " on the one hand, and moral freedom of conscience , on the other.

Through the 1940s and 1950s, the playwrights and film makers faced the censorious atmosphere created by the Senator Joseph McCarthy. As a reaction to the banning and tyrannizer manner McCarthyism, some playwrights wrote plays criticizing the censor pressure. One and the most leading critic was Arthur Miller. He wrote The Crucible, drawing a parallelism between McCarthy’s struggle to root out the communist sympathizers and witch hunt of Salem. The Crucible is the allegorical adaptation of McCarty’s quest. Just like Arthur Miller, Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee felt an anti-intellectual attack to the realm of freedom by Joseph McCarthy and as a reaction they choose their subject from recent history and dramatized it. They revived the Scope’s trial filed in 1925. 1925 was the year when Christian fundamentalism was beyond argument. Many people were deeply bound up with the Bible that anything contradictory to the Bible could result in moral breakdown of society. Thus, Christian fundamentalism imposed some restrictions and prohibitions one of which was the teaching of evaluation theory in all levels of schools including universities which was banned in 1925 in Tennessee. However, John T. Scopes, a biology teacher, taught Darwin’s evolution theory at school. It was the reason of the Scope’s trial which aroused interest among the press and society and in time it began to be called ‘Monkey Trial’. Written in 1955 by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, Inherit the Wind is a play based basically on the Scope’s trial, though it does not provide one to one correspondence with it. Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee question, in depth of the play, the need for the tolerance of different perspectives and freedom of thought. This paper aims to exemplify the power of thought; the power of having an idea and to express it freely as well as the exclusion of people walking against the grain and how it was confronted by the society touching on the McChartism, social and political situation in 1920s and 1950s. 
Key Words: McCarthy, Inherit the Wind, Scopes Trial, American Fundamentalism, Freedom of Thought.

The Republic of Ubuntu (Ubuntu) is an African developing country with a total population of 15 million (2007 figures), majority being peasants. There are a number of human rights violations complained about by the petitioners against the State of Ubuntu. In contention is the violation of national legislation and international human rights treaties