Freedom of expression vs. freedom from insults

French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" has published pictures of the prophet Mohamed as a cartoon character in its latest issue, the magazine also stated that the prophet was the editor in chief for that particular issue, the result is the petrol bombing and destruction of the magazines offices in Paris.

It is strictly forbidden in Islam for anyone to make or create images of the prophet Mohamed, to do so is regarded by Muslims to be disrespectful and is an insult, therefore one has to ask - why ?, why did this magazine feel it necessary to knowingly and deliberately upset a section of French society. ?

Personaly I am a none believer, I am from a Christian background, and though I will frequently criticise Islam, the Catholic Church, Jewish hard liners and American bible bashers, I would not go so far as to purposely disrespect or poke fun at someone elses beliefs, this is called tolerance.

I am glad we live in the United Kingdom where the preaching or publishing or promotion of religious hatred and intolerance is forbiden by law - in some nations you are allowed to preach hatred and hide behind the wall called "freedom of speech", in some nations there is no hiding place.

We have seen the reactions of some Muslims before when this has happened, it begs the question - was this magazine looking for publicity knowing they would attract attention, perhaps their sales figures were down.

It has ever been the French Raison Detre to see how far the boat can be pushed out. Playing games in politics and religion is like an old national sport! You only have to look at the way they treated the Scots in the Auld Alliance to figure that out, as it was always played by their rules - when they could gain an advantage usually over England.

If the French want to play with Islam, then I suggest we let them and not to get us involved.

In this case, the French Police are armed and do not take prisoners. I wish that ours were, and could'nt.

No contest, freedom of expression wins every time. There is no reason why anyone’s political or religious views should receive immunity from insults, just as there is no reason that people who hold lofty positions such as Head of State or Heir to the Throne should automatically receive respect.

witchfinder wrote:
We have seen the reactions of some Muslims before when this has happened

Many Christians have managed to express their disapproval of ‘The Life Of Brian’ and ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera’ without resorting to violence or threats of it, but the same cannot be said for Moslems when faced with ‘The Satanic Verses’ and Theo van Gogh’s film on the treatment of women under Islam. Good for ‘Charlie Hebdo’ for not being afraid to use its right of free expression, and good for anyone who wishes to criticise the magazine – peacefully.

Could Ivans argument be transfered from a person faith to a persons race, colour or ethnic origin. ?

Would it be ok for me to refer to a British person of Carribean origin as "nigger", and my argument would be that its my right to do so, its my freedom of speech, if I want to call a black person a "wog" then why shouldent I.
And if I choose to call a Muslim a "rag head" or a gay person "queer", then what right has anyone to tell me that I cannot. ?

It is all about something called "live and let live" and allthough I personaly do not agree with the Islamic faith, it does not mean that I want to insult Muslims, people who have chosen the Islamic faith, and those people who were born into the faith and choose to continue with it deserve acceptance from others, they surely do not deserve have fun poked at them, or to be disrespected.

I do not agree with nor support the radical Muslims who take protest too far, and no one should condone the petrol bombing of a building, but I do understand that for many Muslims enough is enough, many of them feel marginalized, frustrated and constantly under suspicion.

There has got to be responsibility within the media, where was common sense ?

witchfinder wrote:-
Could Ivan's argument be transferred from a person's faith to a person's race, colour or ethnic origin?

No. Those are all matters over which an individual has no choice (and you could have added gender). You can choose and/or change your religion and your politics.

Every language in the World has words that correspond to "shorty/lofty/fatty/skinny/four-eyes/lefty/baldy" and the ethnic descriptions which are not always complimentary.

Anybody who chooses to take offence will have ample opportunity wherever they are.

And if I choose to call a Muslim a "rag head" or a gay person "queer", then what right has anyone to tell me that I cannot. ?

In addition to what Ivan said, whom I agree with, another factor that differs with religion is that a particular religious group is often the majority. Racial slurs and quips about gays are almost always the majority imposing its insults onto a minority. The reason why this is important is because, if treating a particular group with disrespect interlaces itself into society as a whole, then it makes it that much easier for the majority to tyrannize them. The majority decides which way that society's culture goes (with some minor exceptions), and if the majority thinks its peachy keen to belittle other racial groups, then it is a de facto sanction by that nation to also belittle them. In a democracy, that is doubly dangerous, for it leads to the majority actually voting in tyrannical legislation used to oppress the minority they hate so much. Racism is taught ... it is a learned behavior. We aren't born with it. If society at large teaches us to be racists, most people who otherwise would not ... will become racists. Hatred breeds hatred. In America, there are a number of examples of this, from enslavement of blacks, oppression of women, the forced relocation of and wars against Native Americans, and even the internment of some 100,000 or more Japanese-Americans during WWII can be lessons learned of the dangers of too much freedom of expression.

Now, in this particular case, Muslims in France may not be a majority, yet there is another difference. In nearly all cases where Westerners "insulted" Islam with a cartoon or television show, it was done in jest. I would argue that most people would not take offense to a racist term as long as they know it was meant as a joke. A real joke ... and not the way bullies mean it ("C'mon, man, lighten up. Pushing you down the stairs because your gay was a JOKE!"). Radical Muslims take themselves and their religion far too seriously and, joke or not, they immediately resort to violence whenever they feel offended.

I detest political correctness in a major way. I think we're all adults enough to decide for ourselves when we should take offense without the parameters being handed down from "on high." We do have this little thing called "freedom of speech," and I believe in that right with unbridled passion. With all rights come responsibility, and that means that we have to watch our tongues. Freedom of speech only protects us from the government, not the black man on the street you just carelessly called a "N____." Nor does it protect us from an angry Muslim mob.

What angers me most about the Muslim reaction is their violence and the fact that they are projecting their values and beliefs onto a society they voluntarily came to live among. This is just yet another example of religion trying to impose its will onto everyone - believer or non-believer, Muslim or infidel.

Sharina, I agree with all you have said in your last post, especially the final Paragraph.
With regards to the Frogs haveing another pop at the mozies. France has had a muslim problem for a much longer period than we in the UK, we must remember that places like Algeria and Morroco where governed by France, and legaly untill independance where Legaly French, they fought for France in WW2, and loads of them represent France in sport allthough they have never been to the Country.
I wonder if the frogs in their own inimitable way are simply trying to wind the rag heads up, I mean only recently we had the banning of the Burka.
Perhaps the Frenchies are trying to bring any muslim problems to the fore now whilst their arent too many of them to deal with, rather than wait till their numbers rise to suficient numbers that rioting muslims would be too powerfull to deal with, let alone legislate against.

So basicly the argument is that - a magazine or newspaper should be able to spark off a riot through iresponsible contents "because it can", because there is no rule or law which says they cant, therefore its ok and they cannot be held to account.

Well I do not agree

This magazine knew very well that similar pictures in European newspapers sparked riots and violence throught Europe and beyond, they also know that for many Muslims the depicting of Mohamed is forbiden and regarded as highly disrespectful and insulting - yet this magazine just went straight ahead and printed the pictures.

If we are a civilized society, then we ought to be able to show a little restraint, a little bit of respect

What next ? - how about depicting a Hindu temple serving up beef dinners, how about having a laugh at Jews been asked to crowd into the nice shower together, or lets have a gay porn magazine showing Jesus Christ in gay sex positions.

No Thanks lets not

Any group of of people of any belief religious or secular who can not laugh
at it self in a rye way need to take a good long look at what they really are all about.Wish there was another Peter the hermit.

It seems reasonable to me that if a person or media publication elects to deliberately insult a group, they run the risk of unpleasant consequences.

If you deliberately put your hand in a flame, it may hurt.

Two lovely black eyes,
Oh, what a surprise!
Only for telling a man he was wrong,
Two lovely black eyes.

whitbyforklift

I do like your new picture

This magazine knew very well that similar pictures in European newspapers sparked riots and violence throught Europe and beyond, they also know that for many Muslims the depicting of Mohamed is forbiden and regarded as highly disrespectful and insulting - yet this magazine just went straight ahead and printed the pictures.

No one should give in under the threat of force. In other words, we should not have to compromise one of our core values of freedom of speech because of terrorist threat. If we do that, then they win. Hands down. End game. It's over. If the West shows that violence achieves the Muslim goals, then even more violence will follow. Therein lies the difference. If the Muslim community expressed their anger in a reasonable way, then perhaps a compromise could be reached. But if we cave under the threat of violence, then we may as well put all of our values under the Muslim knife. They will use it even more because they know it works.

Perhaps you have seen the show "South Park?" I don't know if you get it in Britain, but it is a very irreverent yet hilarious show, and it makes fun of EVERYONE. They make fun of Jews ALL the time; they make fun of Christians, Mormons, Hindus, and even obscure religions like Voodoo. They make fun of all races and nationalities too, as well as all political leanings. No one is exempt, and so far, not one single group tried to bomb the producers of the show.

That was, until they tried to make fun of Muhammad. Here, watch as much of this as you want; it's 10 minutes long:



Now, I refuse to be bullied by these people, and neither should anyone else. Islamic blasphemy laws do NOT apply to Americans, Dutch, Britons, or anyone else but Muslims. When they behave like this, I feel they have forfeited their right to not be offended - assuming such a right even exists (which it doesn't). You've heard the expression, "It's not what you say but how you say it," well ... the same holds true in principle. If we have to compromise our values due to Islamic blasphemy laws issued from a priest halfway around the world, then what's the point? We may as well hoist the star and crescent flag, burn our law books, and convert to Islam.

Witchfinder, you seem to be all a panic.

This is in France!

The article would be against some law or other here, from peeing up alleys and closes to frightening horses!

This country AND the USA should keep officially VERY quiet, and let France take all the bile and steam itself!

I am not muslim...I will not be cowed by their extremism. That they would kill or call for the killing of a person who would draw an image of Muhammed speaks more of the insanity which is Islam than the alleged "intolerance" of the artist or magazine which published the work.

Islam is a curse upon humanity...a cancer deperately in need of excision, not "tolerance".

All the opinions on this thread seem equally valid to me.

Ultimately everyone is free to do as he pleases, speak as he pleases, bomb and kill as he pleases. We can't have this, so we need the law. The law must be upheld. Force should be met with superior force.

Make the laws you want, it's your choice. Don't complain if they are not broken. Or if you run into trouble because your laws are too lenient, or too weakly enforced.

That's not a nice state of affairs. But anarchy would be worse.

With those urgent matters taken care of, you can now start brainwashing everyone into being more civilised. Known as education.

gurthbruins,

Hello and welcome to the forum! I'm sure I speak for all the staff when I say I hope you stick around and become an active participant.

The last two lines of your post seem to be inherently self-contradictory. In one line you claim that "anarchy is even worse" but in your second line, you seem to sneer at civilization and education. Yet without the latter, you inevitably have the former so ... which is it? Is anarchy worse? Or is "brainwashing," civilization, and education?

Shirina wrote:gurthbruins,

Hello and welcome to the forum! I'm sure I speak for all the staff when I say I hope you stick around and become an active participant.

The last two lines of your post seem to be inherently self-contradictory. In one line you claim that "anarchy is even worse" but in your second line, you seem to sneer at civilization and education. Yet without the latter, you inevitably have the former so ... which is it? Is anarchy worse? Or is "brainwashing," civilization, and education?

I think he meant that brainwashing is a good thing.

I think he meant that brainwashing is a good thing.

Hmm, upon a closer look, I ignored the quotes around the word "brainwashing." Definitely my error.

My apologies, gurthbruin, if I misread your post!

Anarchy is worse by a mile. That does not make the other choices any better than they are. Basically, we are facing a very nasty situation. I see it as a degeneration of culture, brought about by an over-liberalistic ethos.

What Nietzsche warned about re 2000 years of Christianity.

I see it as a degeneration of culture, brought about by an over-liberalistic ethos.

Could you elaborate?

I have laid claim to being to the right of all people. I did concede the US closed championship to one "fat man".

I deplore the idea of one man one vote, irrespective of what that man has put into society. Novelist Nevil Shute proposed each person should have from 1 to 7 votes, depending on what he'd done to earn them.

Difficult to implement, I think, but worth it.

I think government should be left to those who know something about it. Who are they? Those with the highest level of culture, philosophers for Plato, people who share Shirina's values of beauty and love.

The rulers should be beneficent - they are there to serve the people. But the abolition of slavery merely removed the insult; the injury became worse. That was a calculated move by the money-grabbers: they replaced slavery where the owners were motivated to preserve their slaves, by wage slavery where the owners were now faceless and relieved of any need to care whether their slaves lived or died.

Banishing the slaves from the benign, civilised ambience of their owners into the soulless slums and warrens of industry, was the surest recipe for the total alienation of the workers and the collapse of culture. This was now a real enslavement and total oppression masquerading under the guise of liberalism.

When words are prostituted, apparent contradictions arise. They are simply to be seen through.

Novelist Nevil Shute proposed each person should have from 1 to 7 votes, depending on what he'd done to earn them.

This would march us down the road to tyranny.

Banishing the slaves from the benign, civilised ambience of their owners

Slave owners were often not benign. And how is slavery decided upon? Who should be the slave and who should be the master?

This was now a real enslavement and total oppression masquerading under the guise of liberalism.

I don't think it is "liberalism" that you're fighting against, but rather capitalism. Liberalism and capitalism are often at odds with each other.

You can usually get off by paying.

You either have complete freedom of speech which everyone has the right to reply to, even be it insulting,annoying or downright disgusting or you do not, there is no reasonable way in which to determine what is and what is not acceptable, everyone would have a different view and who should or could be the judge?.

We have three rules here. One requires members to stay within the law, the other two are about respect and integrity. We have no choice over the first rule, but the staff agreed the other two and, as far as I know, most members find them acceptable.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t18-posting-rules

I do wonder sometimes if there should be a fourth rule, imposing sanctions against those who repeatedly post material which they know is false and which has previously been exposed as false, but I realise that this is a more controversial issue.

Surely there is the other aspect. I may post something on here which offends someone. Although it may be a legitimate post, if I find out that it is offensive, surely it is not the right thing to continually offend. Having made the point it is wiser to leave it. Commonsense should prevail.

Traditionally, there were three things a Gentleman would not discuss in his Club - Sex, Politics and Religion.

Flower-arranging, anyone?

oftenwrong wrote:Traditionally, there were three things a Gentleman would not discuss in his Club - Sex, Politics and Religion.

Flower-arranging, anyone?

d.... Memo. Cancel stripper for working mens club next week. Contact florist.

There must be a lot more juice to be squeezed out of this fruit of a discussion.

Let's hear it for "Freedom of expression vs. freedom from insults"

The 'rule' about creating pictures of the prophet Mohammed applies to Muslims. Anyone who is not a Muslim is NOT bound by this religious 'rule'. I find it absolutely disgusting that Muslims insist that everyone obey their religious laws. Well, sorry but I am not a muslim and if I want to draw a Charlie Chaplin mustache on the prophet Mohammed, I am well within my rights to do so. And the muslims who riot in the streets because someone drew a disrespectful picture of Mohammed are criminals. Most people are respectful of others religious views but for those that aren't it does not give muslims carte blanche to throw a paddy and start killing people and destroying property. That just makes the whole bunch of them bullies. It is down to them to control themselves and present themselves as civilised followers of a religion. They do themselves no favours behaving like criminals.

Actually well said snowy, although by now you probably will not remember writing it. Muslims still think they can do what they like in our country, yet if we tried the same in theirs we would probably be shot dead on sight would we not.?

This is what happens with any religion that believes it has a divine mandate to conquer the world. Islam does it with violence, Christianity does it with laws and missionaries. They both amount to the same thing in the end - total subjugation to the will of someone else's god and someone else's holy book.

I am glad I bought this question out of the doldrums, as it seemed to be more a question for today's society to mull over. Already it has found three sensible answers to today's muslim's and other cultures that want to fit in to britains society. An early morning start too for one reason or another for myself that started me off in tears cos i'm a soft shit basically. So I thought let's see who else is up at this silly time of day.  

You cannot possibly insult someone who is brain dead.

Sorry for my lateness in replying Heretic, I have been round a friends chatting both our problems away. Which I must say helped us both considerably. Yes our multiculturism here in britain does seem to have failed does it not.

Heretic wrote:America seems to have less of a problem with Islam

The Muslim population of America is only 0.06% which is why we don't have much of a problem with them; most of them are concentrated in just one city, as well -- Dearborn, Michigan.

Of course, the radical Christian right-wingers will have you believe that we're in danger of being overrun with Muslims and that Sharia law will usurp the Constitution. Some states were so paranoid about this that laws were passed to prevent Sharia law from becoming dominant. Kind of like passing laws to keep the monster under the bed from leaving the bedroom.

Shirina wrote:

Heretic wrote:America seems to have less of a problem with Islam

Which prompts the question, Why has "America" been so ready to wage actual physical war against countries in the Middle East which, perhaps by coincidence, happen to be Islamic?

9/11.

Ah, yes. Tit-for-tat, even if it's against the wrong target.