Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
Came across Charlie Hebdo in FB. And didn't have a clue - and still don't - who he is. ....
case closed.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
A ‘mistake’ it is…
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
case closed.
Ridiculous response. Regardless of who tbis person or organization is, the arguments laid out are valid.
Also, I look forward to evidence for your claim that jokes at the expense of the other victims outlined in your post are allowed. I haven't seen any Comedian get away with jokes at the expense of the slavery victims, for example.
That there are jokes on the Holocaust should be an alarming indication of the level of anti semitism prevalent in society.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
- Christianity and other religious beliefs have to put up with far worse than Islam.
Making caricatures is not the correct way to go about this, intellectual debate should be preferred.
Muslims should focus on the root cause of why caricatures are being made.
Comparing drawings of prophet Mohammed to holocaust is not correct. You can compare drawings of prophet Mohammed to drawings of Jesus or Moses. Religion is based on belief, something which only exists in the mind of those who believe in that particular religion. Holocaust is something which actually occurred.
Making caricatures of holocaust can be compared to making caricatures of the India/Pakistan partition or the plight of the Yazidi women in Iraq for example.
- Holocaust has been satirized, Hitler has been called Messiah and derogatory remarks about other races are made, and they fall under the parole of freedom of speech in western Europe. Freedom of speech doesn't mean said speech can not be condemned/challenged legally.
Also see point number 1.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
The intention is not a comparison. The intention is to show that you can enjoy freedom of speech as long as you do not talk about Jews.
The argument that “X should not be questioned or made fun of because X occurred.” is absurd. Why are other incidents in history, much worse in nature and consequences do not get same treatment?
The question is, why Holocaust denial or satirizing it is even outlawed in some countries? Because it hurts some people.
If denying holocaust or making fun of it ‘hurts’ some people, then other actions that hurt other people should get same treatment.
…with people losing their jobs, if they ever gathered courage to attempt it.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
The intention is not a comparison. The intention is to show that you can enjoy freedom of speech as long as you do not talk about Jews.
Charlie Hebdo actually published a cartoon, which deemed both muslims and jews as untouchables. Moses is satirized and ridiculed. As far as I know, its religion, and not the people who are targets of such caricature. At least not in respectable magazines.
The question is, why Holocaust denial or satirizing it is even outlawed in some countries? Because it hurts some people.
Satirizing Holocaust is not just about hurting sentiments, its about ridiculing victims of cruelty.
Why are other incidents in history, much worse in nature and consequences do not get same treatment?
I believe they do, but if you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears. :)
I fully agree that hurting others sentiments is wrong. If you disagree on something then attack it maturely, rather than drawing cartoons, which will not only alienate and offend those who are proponents of beheading, stoning etc. but also alienate and offend muslims who are opponents of these types of punishments.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
....I believe they do, but if you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears. .....
If you browse this thread, I have given examples. Even Charlie Hebdo fired someone for publishing holocaust article.
How about you give me an example of an event (except holocaust) where voicing contrarian opinions could get you fired. People can even talk about 9/11 being a conspiracy of US government and they are fine.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
One comment that I have to make is that US or Canada might have an argument wrt "Free Speech", but europe bans minarets, hijabs, mosques are attacked and you can actually go to prison for criticizing holocaust in some european countries.
Little off topic, but I know bill maher really has an orgasm when it comes to europe and how they are so civilized. He criticized the hijab move once, but I would now really ask him why not? when he said that muslims are "bad" for demanding prosecution in Europe for people mocking the prophet when europe actively censors and limits speech that they don't like.
You want freedom of speech? Even though anti-semitism card can get you places in the US, they still couldn't ban KKK marching in a jewish neighborhood here. Now that is what you call free speech.
9/11 happened here and Europe is topping the charts on islamophobia. I think that an american analyst was right when he smirked that american troops might be needed one day to "rescue" european muslims when europeans are done with them similar to what happened to another group.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
^ exactly, I asked the same question in another thread as to why Muslims of Europe are getting radicalised. The islamophobia is pushing Muslims to the sidelines and radicalising them, some one from the group would carry out an act like this which would increase islamophobia and further alienate Muslims. Vicious cycle this.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
This is the same France that banned pro Palestinian march against Israeli brutalities this summer.
The point is simple, Holocaust is an extremely sensitive issue for Jews and they don't like when it is ridiculed or denied therefore we are told to respect those sentiments and leave that topic alone. In similar vain, Prophet Muhammad is held in a very supreme regard for Muslims, it is a very sensitive issue for them, they don't like him being ridiculed and demonised, so how about the freedom of speech champions respect that and leave this issue alone.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to intentionally insult!
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
Having said that, I fully agree with Numan Ali's view that Muslims simply need to stop reacting to every second inflammatory and bigoted rubbish that gets posted in the name of freedom of speech. Stop giving these guys what they are craving for - publicity. Let them do whatever they want to do, they would eventually get bored of making fun of you and find a new joke.
It is absolutely heart wrenching what happened in France, and I do believe similar future instances can be avoided, if Muslim leaders seriously start teaching Muslims the policy of indifference and tolerance.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
This also leads me to me one last and final point: the blasphemy laws need to go. Absolutely. It needs to scrapped, totally.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
We are fools if we think there is freedom in anything they offer us. But ... We can simply give facts ...
1st FB has apologized to him, but more importantly west is more tolerant than anything Muslim world has to offer. Beside if "us" is/are not happy with west why stay there?
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
There have been several brutalities comparable to holocaust for which there are no 'hate speech' laws. Call me 'insensitive, but why are Jews and Holocaust considered so sacred that we cannot make fun of it but making fun of dropping atomic bombs on Japan is not?
Millions of Native Americans were systematically killed by colonists. But we can make jokes about it.
Millions of African slaves were killed during slave trade but we can make jokes about it.
Millions of Chinese were killed by Japanese invaders, but we can make jokes about it.
Belgium's king kills 10 million Africans a hundred years ago but there are no laws about making fun of it.
My question is only this. Why are Jews and holocaust treated so special that we need laws protecting them? The answer: Oh, it is recent past and their kith and kin are still living is BS.
The same organization fires an employee for making anti-Jew cartoons but supports vehemently the right of 'free speech' when it comes to making anti-Muslim jokes?
I can say only this: For you and I, religion might not be important, but for Millions and millions of Muslims respect Muhammad (PBUH) a 1,000 times more than their own parents. If holocaust denial hurts Jews, then disrespecting Muhammad (PBUH) hurts Muslims much much more. You can call it irrational, but this is how things are.
If you are going to support 'free speech', then you should support it across the board and not selectively.
Let me try again. Can you provide instanced of "we make jokes about it" re: the other incidents you mention? I can't recall anyone making jokes about blacks killed in slave trade, Chinese killed by Japanese or blacks killed by the Belgian king.
I will concede the team names such as Cleveland Indians is an insult to American Indians.
Your hypothesis about the jews being treated differently than the other victims is based on claims that have not yet been substantiated with facts.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
^ exactly, I asked the same question in another thread as to why Muslims of Europe are getting radicalised. The islamophobia is pushing Muslims to the sidelines and radicalising them, some one from the group would carry out an act like this which would increase islamophobia and further alienate Muslims. Vicious cycle this.
I agree with this. Marginalization of a segment in Society leads to bad outcomes.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
I personally am OK with FB decision either way. As long as several Muslim countries punish by death real or perceived insults to holy figures, there is always a high likelihood satire on the faith will be done. And some go over the top.
It would be heartening to see the same enthusiasm and mass support for removal of such laws. Then protests against insults would gain more credibility.
Comparing mocking of holocaust victims (or any of the other victims kakaballi has listed ) with satire on Rama Krishna or any other religious figure is quite ridiculous. And leads to more satire when such satire is met with violence.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
If you do not bother to find out the context of this thread, why should I spend time to find such instances? Popular culture is filled with such stuff.
However, you can find me another historical event, denying which leads you to lose your job or even expressly forbidden by law in countries which are at the forefront of freedom of speech.
Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
I find it difficult to adjust.
France that has put all bans on public display of religious symbols could openly tolerate absured and the most insane jokes on religions!!!
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
Sometimes it is useful to read the whole link contents. If you did that with your eyes open, you will find multiple countries that say genocide denial against any grouo, hate specs with respect to sexual orientation etc are also subject to same laws.
As to your not providing instances of jokes re 10 million Africans killed, if you make a claim, back it up. That ain’t got notn to do with whether I knew who or what charlie hegdo is. I think they are the organization that fired the person who fired the Sine guy. (I do understand the topic, and not knowing the name of the organization don’t mean notn)
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
If you did it, you would find multiple instances like…
The Influence of a Man Who Denies the Holocaust - The New York Sun
On October 3,a French court convicted Mr. Faurisson of Holocaust denial for statements he made on Iran’s Sahar TV in February 2005.
===================
Again, if you do not know Charlie Hebdo, you do not know the context of firing that person or the context of what I am saying. If you don’t know the context, better not indulge in a discussion.