01-14-2015 02:23 PM
75 123
tools
  1. TheMightyCraken's Avatar
    Je ne suis pas Charlie
    AhmadSorour likes this.
    01-13-2015 09:35 AM
  2. palandri's Avatar
    Je ne suis pas Charlie
    Which means I am not Charlie.

    I am not sure a lot of people here know French.
    a5cent likes this.
    01-13-2015 09:54 AM
  3. tiziano27's Avatar
    @palandri,

    It seems my English is just too bad. I didn't said that people should be banned or censored from using satire, even though satire is questionable.

    The point is that Satire is already censored in some subjects. For example this newspaper wouldn't be allowed, specially in Europe:
    Der Strmer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer

    The current censorship rules are based on the cultural background, in subjective views of the world, historic reasons or established by convenience to keep social peace. Maybe France should expand a bit those rules recognizing that is a multi-cultural country.

    Someone could say: Why is racism censored? It should be allowed and confronted with arguments, racism is so stupid that nobody would follow those ideas after thinking about it. But as many idealistic views, this doesn't work in reality.

    I'm not proposing that Islam shouldn't be criticized, but sensible subjects should be treated more carefully, without too much hatred and selfishness, with a more constructive intention.
    01-13-2015 09:59 AM
  4. a5cent's Avatar
    I think your view is really dangerous, a5cent, because without understanding what you're doing, you're imposing your culture in an authoritarian way.
    Thank you for disagreeing in a thoughtful way. I understand the points you are making, but you are very wrong about them. Yours are popular misconceptions, likely because at first glance, they seem very reasonable. However, your view of what constitutes a better approach would, over time, have grave consequences, which would throw western culture back a few hundred years, and end up making this world a far more dangerous place for everyone living in it, including people in the middle east. It's as if you've noticed the few "small" free-speech related dangers waiting outside your front door, and you're so focused on them, that you're completely overlooking your wide open and unguarded back door where far graver dangers lurk.

    Your misconceptions are these:

    1. There is no such thing as limitless free speech. Limits are already imposed by culture and law and thereby arbitrary. If those limits are arbitrary, we might as well have all countries add "insulting Islam" to the kinds of speech that is illegal.
    2. That adhering to the principles of free speech (which means people are free to mock political figures or religions or anything else, without risk of government intervention or retaliation), is equivalent to imposing western culture on middle easterners in an authoritarian way.

    This is why those ideas are wrong:

    1)
    You are right that free speech is not limitless, but you fundamentally misunderstand how those limits are decided upon. They aren't as arbitrary as you claim them to be. You mentioned examples of verbal sexual harassment and hate speech, specifically racism. Well, guess what? Nobody in a free society goes to prison because they exchange racist thoughts, write racist books, or create racist websites. People have the right to do so, and it's honestly better when such is brought out into the open and discussed in public, rather than suppressed, which always leads to those elements of society becoming even more radicalized. For harassment this is not true. People have the right to not be physically or verbally assaulted. That is also part of living in a free society. People have the right to ignore any potential belligerent harasser and not be pestered further. In western societies, Muslims have the same rights. Muslims are free to ignore cartoons, not read publications they disagree with, and not have people trail them and get up in their face while citing anti-islamic hate speech, which is also harassment.

    Free speech is limited by the principle that you can't say things that could harm people. In the U.S. the most well known example is that you aren't allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. That's when free speech infringes on other rights, namely people's right to remain safe and free from harm. A magazine publishing 30'000 to 60'000 issues a month with the occasional mildly insulting cartoon, doesn't harm anyone. The absolutely best place for such material is out in the public where people can debate it.

    Let's not pretend that middle eastern cultures and Islam are perfect. There is a lot wrong about both, and that is what Charlie Hebdo occasionally tried to point out, like they did for all of the major religions. Not just Islam. Taking those accusations in stride and pointing out why they are wrong would make Muslims stronger! It's a stupid comparison, but not entirely different from the way criticism of WP also makes the WP community more realistic about their own preferences and also drives MS to be better. If Muslims could do the same, they would also become more accepted and understood in western societies. With so many Muslims calling for suppression however, they just look incredibly thin skinned and weak in their faith.

    In summary, yes, free speech does come with some limitations, but the principles by which free speech is limited are not arbitrary. Making satirical criticizem of Islam illegal would run completely counter to the basic principle of free speech, and would represent the only exception to the otherwise systematic limitations.

    edit:
    The point is that Satire is already censored in some subjects. For example this newspaper wouldn't be allowed, specially in Europe:
    Der Strmer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer
    In addition to free speech laws, Germany has some extra laws in place outlawing anything related to National Socialism. Based on their background, that is somewhat understandable. It's not true that this publication is outlawed across Europe however. I live right next to Germany. You'll certainly get ridiculed and mocked for buying this kind of stuff, and printing it will make you downright hated, but with the exception of Germany, you won't get fined or thrown in jail for it.

    2)
    I already addressed this fallacy in earlier posts, but it seems to stubbornly hold on. Free speech is a right. It is a freedom. You can't impose a freedom on somebody! Removing people's freedom to express themselves as they desire, would lead to far more problems for the Muslim community, than the occasional cartoon ever could. How many Mosques do you think would never have been built, if western societies didn't support Muslim's right to preach what they themselves disagree with? Minorities have always greatly benefited from this freedom, and it's ironic that Muslims now want to get rid of that freedom, when it's their turn to suck something up!

    As I mentioned in the first section, what is considered acceptable free speech is not arbitrary. What you are proposing would be the first crippling blow to free speech in western societies. If you think journalists that occasionally offend Islam would be the only ones silenced, you are sorely mistaken. History has proven over and over again that humans are not very good at deciding what should and should not be censored. I think you are a perfect example of this. The west still believes that laws should apply to all people equally, so if we decided your proposal is acceptable, why wouldn't others then also have the right to outlaw any other materials they find offensive? How long would it take, before some groups start lobbying to outlaw the Hadith? If those groups said they found the Hadith offensive (which it is), what leg would Muslims have to stand on to say they should be allowed to keep printing it? None! Oh yeah, and of course the west wouldn't just want it banned in their own societies, but all across the middle east too. That would only be fair, right?

    It's not just little things like this that free speech are important for. National socialism would never have risen to power in Germany, if the government hadn't had the ability to lock away political dissenters, burn books and censor all newspapers. When all voices of opposition disappear, most people tend to believe and go along with what seems to be majority opinion, which in this case helped cement Hitler's power in Germany and greatly helped in the perpetuation of the holocaust. This too is the type of thing free speech helps protect against. Are you sure it's worth weakening that system, just because some people's faith is so weak they can't deal with a stupid cartoon?

    I don't think it is worth it, and I'd rather avoid any limitation of free speech being imposed on anybody! Muslims should feel the same, because as soon as the first brick is pulled from the foundation of free speech, which is what you propose should be done, Muslims will have a lot more limitations to contend with than most of the other people living in western societies.
    Last edited by a5cent; 01-13-2015 at 10:39 AM. Reason: see edit
    palandri and Laura Knotek like this.
    01-13-2015 10:13 AM
  5. harharharris's Avatar
    This is the problem. This whole campaign should be used as a ground to unite together and promote mutual respect and peace and not resort to insulting and inciting violence against any sects/beliefs.
    01-13-2015 10:17 AM
  6. a5cent's Avatar
    I'm an Iranian Muslim and I support Charlie hebdo Just as much as I support south park series for showing Muhammad on TV. It's not that Charlie hebdo just made fun of Muslims. It makes jokes about Christians, about Jews, and ... So it isn't an anti Islamic magazine. Comedy is something without any limit or boundaries, and if comic and comedy had a redline, then it won't be comedy. It would be like the movie "The Interview" where a journalist can only ask scripted questions. And that is completely against freedom of speech.
    Despite all the huffing and puffing over Iran in western media, many Iranians seem far more sophisticated about this type of thing then people in many other middle eastern societies. I don't know why that difference exists, but it's definitely there. Kudos to Iranian society on that one!
    palandri likes this.
    01-13-2015 10:21 AM
  7. audi360's Avatar
    Despite all the huffing and puffing over Iran in western media, many Iranians seem far more sophisticated about this type of thing then people in many other middle eastern societies. I don't know why that difference exists, but it's definitely there. Kudos to Iranian society on that one!
    Maybe it's because other middle eastern countries are Arab, but despite what most Americans think, Iranians are different from Arabs in culture, language and many other things. Most Iranians origins are Persian and we use the Persian language
    01-13-2015 01:34 PM
  8. squire777's Avatar
    I am not a racist, insensitive bigot so no I am not Charlie, and never will be.
    AhmadSorour likes this.
    01-13-2015 01:50 PM
  9. a5cent's Avatar
    I am not a racist, insensitive bigot so no I am not Charlie, and never will be.
    Questioning a religion or a political party has absolutely nothing to do with racism. Those are completely different concepts. Furthermore, nobody with any amount of sophistication claims that all Muslims are fanatical Islamists that are sympathetic to terrorism. Some people do unfortunately react to terrorism with such bigoted sentiments, but it is utter BS, and the articles published by Charlie Hebdo routinely made that clear, so this has nothing to do with bigotry either.

    Your accusations are baseless.
    Last edited by a5cent; 01-13-2015 at 03:37 PM. Reason: clearer wording
    palandri and Laura Knotek like this.
    01-13-2015 03:13 PM
  10. tiziano27's Avatar
    1)
    Well, guess what? Nobody in a free society goes to prison because they exchange racist thoughts, write racist books, or create racist websites.
    That's incorrect, unless France and UK shouldn't be considered free societies. I think US is more liberal but I suspect most countries in the west has laws that limit "hate speech", in penal or civil laws.

    For example in UK:
    A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
    (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
    (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
    Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]

    Hate speech laws in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So, this invalidate most of what you wrote.

    Free speech is limited by the principle that you can't say things that could harm people.
    A magazine publishing 30'000 to 60'000 issues a month with the occasional mildly insulting cartoon, doesn't harm anyone.
    That doesn't cause harm to you, but I does to others. The evidence is that 3 people sacrificed their lives to stop that publication, and killed 18?. What cause harm is subjective, people feel different according to many factors, one of the most important is cultural background.


    Let's not pretend that middle eastern cultures and Islam are perfect. There is a lot wrong about both, and that is what Charlie Hebdo occasionally tried to point out, like they did for all of the major religions. Not just Islam. Taking those accusations in stride and pointing out why they are wrong would make Muslims stronger! It's a stupid comparison, but not entirely different from the way criticism of WP also makes the WP community more realistic about their own preferences and also drives MS to be better. If Muslims could do the same, they would also become more accepted and understood in western societies. With so many Muslims calling for suppression however, they just look incredibly thin skinned and weak in their faith.
    In my second post I argued that this too idealistic, in reality It doesn't work. That's why many countries (including mine and I suspect most of the occidental countries), have laws against hate speech or discrimination.

    In addition to free speech laws, Germany has some extra laws in place outlawing anything related to National Socialism. Based on their background, that is somewhat understandable. It's not true that this publication is outlawed across Europe however. I live right next to Germany. You'll certainly get ridiculed and mocked for buying this kind of stuff, and printing it will make you downright hated, but with the exception of Germany, you won't get fined or thrown in jail for it.
    There is no need for additional laws, if you promote the idea of killing the Jews, that would be sanctioned by the existing hate speech laws, even though in France there is a special law about the holocaust, and probably in other countries too.

    ....
    2) is about beliving in a world that is black or white. So, if you add more protection to religion from hate speech, to solve a particular problem with a big population of Muslim, then free speech will end and everybody is going to be chased. Experience itself shows that It's not the case, there are the laws against hate speech, they're used occasionally, most of the time are ignored, many times complains are rejected.
    Legislation is designed to solve real problems in society.


    It's not just little things like this that free speech are important for. National socialism would never have risen to power in Germany, if the government hadn't had the ability to lock away political dissenters, burn books and censor all newspapers. When all voices of opposition disappear, most people tend to believe and go along with what seems to be majority opinion, which in this case helped cement Hitler's power in Germany and greatly helped in the perpetuation of the holocaust.
    On the contrary, with the current laws Hitler would have been in jail, so no Third Reich would have been possible, millions of life saved. There is so much benefit in stopping hate early before is too late, both in social problems as in personal life.

    I don't think it is worth it, and I'd rather avoid any limitation of free speech being imposed on anybody! Muslims should feel the same, because as soon as the first brick is pulled from the foundation of free speech, which is what you propose should be done, Muslims will have a lot more limitations to contend with than most of the other people living in western societies.
    It's worth it, so many people dead, so much pain just to defend a few hateful cartoons. And this is just starting, the reaction in France has been so intransigent, It only increased the problem.

    So much effort to defend the freedom to hate without limits.
    Last edited by tiziano27; 01-13-2015 at 07:50 PM.
    01-13-2015 07:39 PM
  11. squire777's Avatar
    I have my views about that publication and that's not going to change.

    Also, funny how we are hearing all this talk about free speech and freedoms in France yet in France Muslim women cannot wear headscarves if they want to work in public. Also, pro Palestinian protests were outlawed by the French gov't this past summer.

    Nice to see freedom of speech is only championed in Europe if you have something negative to say about Muslims.
    01-13-2015 07:51 PM
  12. portalfocus's Avatar
    I don't support it.
    AhmadSorour likes this.
    01-13-2015 08:05 PM
  13. KarmaEcrivain94's Avatar
    I have my views about that publication and that's not going to change.

    Also, funny how we are hearing all this talk about free speech and freedoms in France yet in France Muslim women cannot wear headscarves if they want to work in public. Also, pro Palestinian protests were outlawed by the French gov't this past summer.

    Nice to see freedom of speech is only championed in Europe if you have something negative to say about Muslims.
    Muslim women are perfectely allowed to wear headscarves. I dunno what your sources are, but that is pure BS. What IS illegal, is wearing the complete things, where you can only see the women's eyes. That is because in all public places your face has to be visible.
    palandri likes this.
    01-14-2015 06:44 AM
  14. a5cent's Avatar
    I have my views about that publication and that's not going to change.

    Also, funny how we are hearing all this talk about free speech and freedoms in France yet in France Muslim women cannot wear headscarves if they want to work in public. Also, pro Palestinian protests were outlawed by the French gov't this past summer.

    Nice to see freedom of speech is only championed in Europe if you have something negative to say about Muslims.
    Yeah, exaggerating the situation and spreading falsehoods doesn't help anybody squire. It just makes things worse and makes you part of the problem.

    Female Muslims in France can wear headscarves. That is not forbidden. Muslim girls cannot wear the headscarf to school however, due to French laws forbidding all religious symbolism in public schools. That applies to all religions, not just Islam. The only difference is that Muslims are the only religious group making a huge deal out of that law. Personally I find this all a bit ridiculous. It's just a scarf, and I'd have no problem viewing it as just a meaningless fashion accessory. The fuss being made over it isn't worth it. But as long as the same rules apply to all people equally, I also don't think it's unfair.

    I don't know anything about Palestinian protests being outlawed (I don't live in France). That would definitely be wrong, and I would definitely argue as strongly for their right to protest as I'm arguing here. Got a source? Muslims do still have plenty of people in Europe who are willing to fight for their side, including me. Unfortunately, attacks like this, and people somewhat excusing it or blaming the victims, make that increasingly difficult, as it portrays Islam ever more as a religion of hatred and violence, meaning there are always fewer and fewer people willing to listen. As soon as people become unwilling to change their mind, no matter what facts are presented and points are made, that's when hope is lost. As a result, you might also want to rethink your statement on your view of Charlie Hebdo. The ability and willingness to change your mind should never be ruled out.
    Last edited by a5cent; 01-14-2015 at 08:49 AM. Reason: text in bold
    palandri likes this.
    01-14-2015 07:10 AM
  15. a5cent's Avatar
    That [Charlie Hebdo] doesn't cause harm to you, but it does to others. <snipped> What cause harm is subjective, people feel different according to many factors, one of the most important is cultural background.
    You are confusing two words. The word "harmed" is not the same thing as "insulted". No cartoon published by Charlie Hebdo harmed anybody! If you can explain to me how "harm" is subjective I'll believe you, but until then I'm calling BS.

    It's amazing to me that you and others can't differentiate between satire and actual hatefulness. If I wanted to, I can ridicule Islam just for the sake of ridicule, without even intending to make any valid point about Islam or Muslim society. That is not what Charlie Hebdo did. Like I said, more reasonable people would either brush it off as foolishness, or be a bit more introspective and consider if the criticism doesn't also have some truth to it that may be worth looking into. Personally, I didn't find Charlie Hebdo's cartoons all that funny, but anybody with a brain understands what point they were trying to make. Pointing out valid issues, as they did for all religions and French politicians, is not hatefulness.

    Harm only came about because some people are so weak in their faith, so delusional in their beliefs, and so limited in their intellectual capacity, that they saw no other option than to resort to violence. Only then did people really get harmed!

    I think US is more liberal but I suspect most countries in the west has laws that limit "hate speech", in penal or civil laws.
    <snipped>
    So, this invalidate most of what you wrote.
    No. It doesn't invalidate any of what I wrote. You're acting as if there is some double standard. You're acting as if insults to some groups of people in the UK and France are already outlawed, and that the UK and France just haven't yet gotten around to legally applying or enforcing the same standards to Islam. That is BS. You just don't understand the difference between what those laws are declaring to be forbidden, and the things Charlie Hebdo published.

    What would be illegal is for me to call for a rally, where I'd encourage everyone to bring along their guns, so we can then all go "Hindu hunting" (no, that's not really a thing). You also can't stand on a soap box in a park and claim all good Christians should kill Muslims. Basically, the whole point of all these laws you mentioned is to make clear, that you can't incite violence.

    So, if you can show me even one article or cartoon that Charlie Hebdo published which incites violence, then I'll instantly change my mind and agree with you that they erred in their ways. Nothing I've seen so far suggests that.

    Oh yeah, and now that you mention it... how about we talk about the anti-hate laws in middle eastern societies, and how those are enforced when large parts of Muslim society call for individuals not living in their societies (in France or Denmark), be murdered for something that was drawn or written? How often do we hear Muslim voices calling for hate-speech laws in those societies? There we really do have double standards...

    The evidence is that 3 people sacrificed their lives to stop that publication, and killed 18?.
    No. They didn't stop anything. These murderers wasted their lives and did nothing except make things far worse, and like bijak_riyandi said, I too fear that it will be a difficult year for Muslims in Europe as a result.

    What did they really achieve?

    • Instead of their usual circulation of 60'000 copies, today's issue of Charlie Hebdeo has been pre-ordered by over three million people in France alone.
    • The magazine has already made clear that they will continue to publish the type of satire they always have, as it is what those who were killed would have wanted.
    • Instead of just being released in French, the publication will now be translated into five languages, including Arabic.
    • Just as there are idiots in Muslim society who think such acts of violence are somewhat justified, there are the same type of idiots in other societies as well, who already have taken this as justification to perpetrate or excuse violence against innocent Muslims.

    If you truly think this stopped anything, you have absolutely no understanding of how humans work. Such violence can stop individual human lives, but it can't stop ideas. It will actually achieve the exact opposite, by making people more extreme in their support of the ideas they think are under violent attack!

    You can't shoot an idea. What you can do is argue and debate over ideas, but guess what? That requires that we have the freedom to occasionally insult those who don't agree with us, because sometimes people are so ideologically blinded that they can't see the difference between constructive criticism in the form of satire, and what is actually a hateful insult or inciting violence.
    Last edited by a5cent; 01-14-2015 at 11:05 AM. Reason: spelling only
    palandri likes this.
    01-14-2015 07:38 AM
  16. palandri's Avatar
    First off, I think people should be free to believe whatever they want to on a spiritual bases. I'll admit I have a hard time grasping a lot of spiritual beliefs due to my belief in science. In the states we have a Christian sect that use rattle snakes as part of their ceremony. If they get bit, they aren't allowed to treat the bite because they believe its god's will. Children in this sect have died from rattle snake bites. It makes no sense to me at all.

    From what I've read it's the full head scarf (eyes only) that is banned in France, but I know it's not strictly enforced. I was in Marseille in September and I saw a few women wearing a full head scarf.

    I read about the protest ban. I think it was on France 24, but it wasn't presented as a ban on a pro-Palestinian rally, but rather a ban on anti-Israel protest, due to a large number of fights breaking out between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel elements. That's all I really know about it.
    Last edited by palandri; 01-14-2015 at 09:17 AM. Reason: wording
    a5cent and tiziano27 like this.
    01-14-2015 08:40 AM
  17. PDCDUW's Avatar
    Je suis Charlie
    palandri likes this.
    01-14-2015 08:46 AM
  18. tiziano27's Avatar
    a5cent,

    You're wrong again about hate speech laws, you didn't read the links. Just insulting or promoting hate or discrimination is enough, not need of promoting or causing physical damage. So, yes, It invalidates your point. Speech is limited because people is mentally harmed by it. Legislation protect people from being harmed, both physically and mentally.
    According to Merriam Webster, harm is defined as "physical or mental damage , something that causes someone or something to be hurt.", I think I'm using the word correctly.

    Charlie Hebdo sometime tries to make a point, other times not, because the core intent is transgression more than a political position. Transgression as the use of freedom for the sake of freedom, without any empathy about the effect of their actions. The intent to show that nothing is untouchable, that they can insult anything or anyone without limits. They're the hateful extremists of free speech.
    You are defending something you don't understand, I could post some caricatures that are just insults without any point, but I don't think It worth it, just search it on Bing.

    You fail to understand that all rights are limited by other rights and my personal freedom is limited by other people freedom, and this rules are conditioned by so many factors and subjectivities, aren't theoretical ideals derived from axioms. Humans are mostly emotional beings, not logical machines, the current social order is representative of this fact, It's full of contradictions.
    In other words, to the incredible complex human interaction system and their millions of tread off and balancing acts, you're trying to apply simplistic nave concepts. And worse you do it in a very aggressive way, please calm down.

    I'm not justifying the attack or evaluating if It succeeded in its intent. I said the attacks to the magazine was evidence that the publication was causing harm to part of the French population.
    In general France should decrease discrimination and learn to integrate the Muslims and other minorities in their diversity, and that means as in most humans interactions, that both parts have to concede some of their rights according to their views of the world, that generous act of conceding is what creates social peace.
    Last edited by tiziano27; 01-14-2015 at 09:12 AM.
    01-14-2015 08:48 AM
  19. someone2639's Avatar
    Here's my viewpoint:

    Any time something like this makes the news, it isn't accomplished by good Muslims, not by terrorists. They're carried out by either misguided people or idiots. Also, why is a magazine writing and drawing anti-Muslim things to begin with? And to such a degree? I believe this is an ***** to ***** conflict. Also consider the fact that this magazine just decides to continue as normal, after some of their staff were killed.

    Point made. Someone2639 out.
    01-14-2015 08:51 AM
  20. a5cent's Avatar
    You're wrong again about hate speech laws, you didn't read the links. Just insulting or promoting hate or discrimination is enough, not need of promoting or causing physical damage. So, yes, It invalidates your point.
    No. I read it. You just still don't understand.

    I agree that Charlie Hebdo released plenty of offensive material, some of which really was in poor taste, and like I said, it wasn't my kind of humour. They created plenty of offensive cartoons for Christians and Jews too however. Yet no organisation was able to successfully sue them in court for crimes related to hate-speech. Not Muslims, not Christians and not Jews. That already proves that you're not understanding something, because if you were at all correct about your interpretation of those laws, at least one of the many powerful organisations supporting those religions, not to mention some of the most prominent politicians in France, would have had some success in court. None has.

    Political satire can't physically or mentally damage anyone. It can insult, once a month in every issue, but not damage. The relevant question is whether such material would cause anyone to attack the group being mocked. So, have any of Charlie Hebdo's anti-islamic cartoons convinced anyone to pick up a gun and murder a Muslim? No. And that is the main difference and it's where your argument falls apart. That's why it doesn't qualify as hate-speech, and it's why they have the right to say it.

    Understand now?

    In general France should decrease discrimination and learn to integrate the Muslims and other minorities in their diversity, and that means as in most humans interactions, that both parts have to concede some of their rights according to their views of the world, that generous act of conceding is what creates social peace.
    Sounds good. Then please give me an example of what rights you think the West should concede, and which you think all Muslim societies should concede? Be specific.
    Last edited by a5cent; 01-14-2015 at 09:57 AM. Reason: spelling
    palandri likes this.
    01-14-2015 09:31 AM
  21. audi360's Avatar
    I have my views about that publication and that's not going to change.

    Also, funny how we are hearing all this talk about free speech and freedoms in France yet in France Muslim women cannot wear headscarves if they want to work in public. Also, pro Palestinian protests were outlawed by the French gov't this past summer.

    Nice to see freedom of speech is only championed in Europe if you have something negative to say about Muslims.
    As I said I live in a Muslim country and I know what he's talking about. He's talking about the lies religious leaders and school teachers tell us about western countries. So his sources are lying leaders and teachers. They relate any unholiness and settings and bad figures to westerns and especially Jews. Like they make us believe Jews worship Satan and most porn sites are owned by Jews. It's all lies and bluffs just to strengthen their position and power
    01-14-2015 09:34 AM
  22. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ I could give you plenty of examples of the exact same thing in the west. It exists everywhere, for the same reasons, and everywhere far too many people fall for it.
    palandri likes this.
    01-14-2015 09:50 AM
  23. tiziano27's Avatar
    a5cent,

    From Wikipedia:
    "The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap."

    "By legislation adopted in 1972, France may ban groups that advocate racism."

    Legislation protect individuals from both metal and physical harm. If you say "you're stupid", that's sanctioned because is an insult for having a factual or fancy handicap. Of course 99% of the hate speech is not prosecuted because, laws aren't proactive, people have to report the fact, prove it, and sanctions are proportional to the harm caused.

    But the current law is not enough to ban Charlie Hebdo because in its "spirit" or in its cultural background, the law interprets mental harm as a direct insult to the individual. The assumption is that every person is focused in the individuality concept as the more important aspect of reality. Although, in other cultures is not the case, in other cultures individuality is renounced and people maximize their happiness or minimize their pain towers other concepts, for example the figure of a prophet and its belief system.
    So, Charlie Hebdo insulting religious prophet, It's not a direct insult to the individual in the western sense, but it could be a huge harm for a person that give up a big part of its individuality towers the more important concept for her. So, that's the cultural difference that is not considered in the legislation.

    So, the typical reaction of an occidental is: "Well, that people is stupid, primitive, we're not going to change our laws and give up our freedom to insult prophets for that stupid form of view, screw them. I believe that freedom of speech is universal right (even thought is already subjectively limited), I believe Muslims fanaticism is stupid, I believe in individuality, I'm Charlie, I, I, I...". This could work, but if you have a big population of people with other culture and views in your country, this kind of intransigent reaction could cause and erupt of violence even bigger.

    A more mature reaction would be: "Ok, I see we have a problem here, these people are feeling harmed by this stuff, lets try to understand them, talk to them, and lets see how we can solve this problem together", this reaction decrease violence, enrich culture, and maybe just the dialog and mutual respect is enough to stop the violence without any change to the legislation. Or a minimal symbolic change in legislation without many practical uses could be enough.
    a5cent likes this.
    01-14-2015 10:26 AM
  24. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ I like this post of yours. Unfortunately I don't have the time to respond right now, but I'll get back to you later. Just wanted to way I thought it was good.
    tiziano27 likes this.
    01-14-2015 10:38 AM
  25. PDCDUW's Avatar
    Je suis Charlie, but flabbergasted by this thread...verbal diarrhoea or what!!
    bmetelsky likes this.
    01-14-2015 02:23 PM
75 123

Similar Threads

  1. Microsoft band only supports English?
    By Windows Central Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-30-2015, 09:28 AM
  2. PSA: Don't trust the "retail support center" for Band stock
    By AndyD33 in forum Microsoft Band & Band 2
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-08-2015, 11:40 AM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-08-2015, 01:20 AM
  4. Advise me please
    By kristalsoldier in forum Nokia Lumia 1520
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-07-2015, 04:34 AM
  5. Toshiba unveils new affordable Windows tablets with Wacom pen support
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-06-2015, 07:50 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD