Double standards on freedom of speech

[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

[Minimalist]

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.

I wish there were more like you.


BTW, the story about that trial was in 2009. Any idea what the result was?

[Esquilax]

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?

Why pin that on secularists? Are you implying that secularists, as a group, are somehow responsible for these particular French laws? And if not, where is the double standard you're mentioning?

It's quite possible to disagree with two things, you know.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

I have always stood against hate-speech laws of any sort, not because I agree with what is being said, but because the best antidote to it is a thorough and public evisceration -- not censorship of any sort.

I'm firmly secularist.

[Ryantology]

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)

Satire is a way to ventilate discord that is most preferable to outbursts of violence. A democracy which allows such outlets is less prone to see discontent expressed in violent or disruptive ways. It's also an assertion of the rights of the people to speak their minds. To see how the government responds to satire can be very instructive. Stable governments tend to be thick-skinned.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A nation that can laugh at itself is a nation that can fix itself.

[paulpablo]

On the one hand I agree that it's stupid to not allow people to question the holocaust. I think it's probably stupid to question the holocaust but I don't think it should be a crime.

But when you look at what you're comparing,
It's being arrested for denying a crime against humanity happened, downplaying what happened and putting it in print.
And killing people for drawing a picture of a man.

The holocaust is an actual crime against humanity that occurred only a few of generations ago. I think making it a crime to question that it happened is over sensitive to the issue but it's at least a slightly understandable.
And even though the people who deny the holocaust may be fired, abused, mocked and so on, I haven't heard about them being shot in the street or killed. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough I don't know.

I haven't heard of any Jews killing people for depictions of Moses or Abraham either.

There's at least some slight reasoning to the laws against holocaust denial , I think people are hoping to stop history repeating itself by knowing what happened, and avoiding making the same mistakes. Denial that anything happened or that what happened isn't so bad is pretty much a step in the wrong direction.

In a thousand years time or so Hitler will probably just be another page in the history book along with Alexander the great, Napoleon and Ghengis Khan, but for now I think people are going to take offense at the notion that the war crimes which happened under his leadership didn't happen.

Also they aren't saying don't show pictures of the holocaust because it offends me and if you do I'll kill you.

On the other hand Muslims stabbing people to death for helping write a book that mocks Islam, planning to blow up a church which has a non offensive depiction of Muhammad inside, constant death threats, mass killings. None of this seems to have any reasoning behind it.
I think a lot of the people who draw the insulting pictures of Muhammad only do it to begin with because of how unreasonably easily offended and violent Muslims can get, and I do sympathize with those people.

I sympathize with someone who wants to deny the holocaust without getting arrested also, but I sympathize much more with someone who wants to draw a picture without being stabbed to death.

I don't really think you made this thread with the intention of supporting the rights of the holocaust deniers.
I don't really know what the point you're trying to make is, something along the lines of, well people have been arrested for denying things about the holocaust so why are people outraged when Muslims kill people for drawing Muhammad?

[robvalue]

I applaud you for your attitude about the muslim gross over reaction. I am all for free speech.

I am rather shocked to hear about these other laws in France. Illegal to question the holocaust, really? What the hell is that? If I start saying it didn't happen, I can be arrested? Or if I question it morally, saying like the nazis were right? Either way, it's fucked up and you're right, it's a double standard. As far as I know that is rare in Europe... I hope so. We have nothing like that in England. Well, we better not.

[jesus_wept]

I think the holocaust denial.laws are an EU thing and not unique to France. The UK opted out of it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_agai...pean_Union

[robvalue]

WHAT? I am gobsmacked. What century are we living in?

Of course I'm not defending the holocaust, but I would never want it to be illegal for anyone to criticise, support or deny anything. Unbelievable! Does this ever get enforced?