Double standards on freedom of speech
January 9, 2015 at 12:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2015 at 12:13 am by Mystic.)
I found this on the internet, and I thought it was interesting:
A common idea that is being repeated over and over in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack is how important satire is to a functioning democracy (although it's never really convincingly explained why that is, but that's another topic), and there are even many who are pushing for certain cartoons to be printed as widely as possible in the name of 'not letting the terrorists win'. Personally, I am completely oblivious to the childish behaviour of the kind of morons that draw and publish such cartoons, and our Prophet (pbuh) is certainly far above this nonsense. I don't think Muslims should even dignify such provocations with a response, let alone drag our religion's name through the mud yet again by acting like lunatics and savages.
In any case, going back to the claims that are being made about the importance of free speech and satire in our great democracies, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a particular incident that took place with this same magazine a few years ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/au...publishing
Notice how the then editor of Charlie Hebdo immediately sacked a veteran satirist for something relatively mild that could 'be interpreted' as spreading the old stereotype associating Jews and money (whether that should even be considered racist is another matter). On the other hand, it is apparently fine to make fairly explicit connections between Muslims, and indeed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and terrorists. Which is worse, being associated with terrorists or associated with money and social connections?
The satirist Sine was subsequently put on trial for anti-Semitism. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-jibe.html
It is quite ironic that a country that could put a man on trial for such a trivial matter is now trying to portray itself as a model of free speech. Let's not forget that France is of course a country in which it is illegal, under threat of jail, to question the Holocaust or to "pass a favourable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_agains...ial#France
Secularists are fond of mocking religious laws of all kinds, but they don't see the stupidity in making it illegal to question a part of history?
If you want a video representation of the extreme double-standards that exist in France in relation to these two matters, then watch the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drMvYJpd8JE
A common idea that is being repeated over and over in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack is how important satire is to a functioning democracy (although it's never really convincingly explained why that is, but that's another topic), and there are even many who are pushing for certain cartoons to be printed as widely as possible in the name of 'not letting the terrorists win'. Personally, I am completely oblivious to the childish behaviour of the kind of morons that draw and publish such cartoons, and our Prophet (pbuh) is certainly far above this nonsense. I don't think Muslims should even dignify such provocations with a response, let alone drag our religion's name through the mud yet again by acting like lunatics and savages.
In any case, going back to the claims that are being made about the importance of free speech and satire in our great democracies, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a particular incident that took place with this same magazine a few years ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/au...publishing
Notice how the then editor of Charlie Hebdo immediately sacked a veteran satirist for something relatively mild that could 'be interpreted' as spreading the old stereotype associating Jews and money (whether that should even be considered racist is another matter). On the other hand, it is apparently fine to make fairly explicit connections between Muslims, and indeed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and terrorists. Which is worse, being associated with terrorists or associated with money and social connections?
The satirist Sine was subsequently put on trial for anti-Semitism. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-jibe.html
It is quite ironic that a country that could put a man on trial for such a trivial matter is now trying to portray itself as a model of free speech. Let's not forget that France is of course a country in which it is illegal, under threat of jail, to question the Holocaust or to "pass a favourable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_agains...ial#France
Secularists are fond of mocking religious laws of all kinds, but they don't see the stupidity in making it illegal to question a part of history?
If you want a video representation of the extreme double-standards that exist in France in relation to these two matters, then watch the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drMvYJpd8JE
