John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

In a democratic society, it is generally considered the Government's role to promote morality and justice within its citizens and seek to restrict supposedly immoral and unjust acts. Thus if an act is to be considered immoral, it seems obvious to suggest that the government is justified in restricting it regardless of whether it is harmful to others. In ‘On Liberty' John Stuart Mill discusses the harm principle as: "The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (68). Mill’s states that a government or society does not have the right to prevent people from actions unless the actions are harmful to others in society. Although government intervention …show more content…
Mill’s discusses the importance of free speech as he believed that individuals should be able to communicate and speak their mind freely, regardless of what they think. He also argued that members of society should be restricted from changing their views by influential figures, and neither the law or moral convictions should be used to alter the citizens' behaviors unless their actions are causing harm to other people. Mill seemed to understand this distinction “even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation of some mischievous act.” Mill’s analyses of the situation presented would suggest that Mark Steyn has labelled the Muslim population, defining a third of the global population as potential threats to global security. Mill’s believes that it is not the expression of an opinion, but a deliberate attempt to provoke grief and emotional hardship to another that is the reason for the restriction. Mills believed "that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others" (On Liberty, 46). Individuals bear the rights to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship as long as it does not offend or harm another individual or groups. Steyn’s publications have created a public forum …show more content…
Firstly, Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress expressed his frustration towards Maclean’s magazine due to the handful of published articles pertaining to the allegations towards the Islamic culture, as well as the countless occasions the news magazines failed to provide platform for counter-view articles. The failure to provide equal platforms for both sides of the conflict disregards one of Mill’s arguments as the indicted in this situation didn’t get an opportunity to rebuttal the accusations placed on their religion. Mill’s argues that, Mill's argues that, individuals who are unable to prove an opposing opinion is false or inaccurate are unfit to favour either opinion. You must be able to recognize why each opinion is credible and compelling (67). Furthermore, Mark Steyn is also another culprit within the Maclean’s magazine Islamophobia scandal as his publications infringe upon the rights of every Muslim individual within the global spectrum. The publications discuss various racist stereotypes aimed towards the Muslims, including that “are hot for jihad” implying that Muslims enjoy participating in terroristic activities. Steyn also stated that “if a man marries a minor who has reached the age of 9 and if during the defloration he