|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jan 14, 2015 21:06:34 GMT -5
Lets not forget the order of Fatwa placed upon Salman Rushdie by the Supreme Leader of Iran-Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini back in 1989 is still in effect. This tradition of death for blasphemy is sometimes government sponsored as well
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on Jan 14, 2015 23:05:28 GMT -5
I thought Sacco made very good points about the nature of satire and how it can turn into just bullying when you're going after those without power rather than those with it. I think it's off-base to say he's "blaming the victim." The one piece of context Sacco left out is that the Charlie Hebdo staffer who was fired for mocking Judaism was also prosecuted by the government. So I don't know how much of the hypocrisy charge can be borne by Hebdo if they were just caving in to the government. This news today that France has just arrested dozens of people today for "hate speech" just drives home the point. One set of thoughtcrimes has state violence exerted against it, another does not -- so ISIS is picking up the slack. Is there any moral difference between Hollande and Coulibaly? Neither Charlie Hebdo nor Dieudonne deserves to be murdered or kidnapped for their thoughts.  What I'm most interested in is where those guys got kalishnikovs. From training with the "rebels" in Syria that the US et al have been supplying? |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 15, 2015 0:55:53 GMT -5
This news today that France has just arrested dozens of people today for "hate speech" just drives home the point. One set of thoughtcrimes has state violence exerted against it, another does not -- so ISIS is picking up the slack. Is there any moral difference between Hollande and Coulibaly? [snip] What I'm most interested in is where those guys got kalishnikovs. From training with the "rebels" in Syria that the US et al have been supplying? Of course there's a moral difference between Hollande and Coulibaly? I don't agree that people should be prosecuted for saying that they agree with a murderer. I don't think a disgusting opinion, in and of itself, without any more, is a crime. But it's ridiculous to claim that they are in the same position. First, I don't think Hollande is empowered to prosecute Dieudonne. So why attribute to the President an action of someone else (pressing charges). Second, even if one were to attribute the prosecution to Hollande, the prosecution of Dieudonne is a prosecution of the person who actually spoke "hate speech." The people who Coulibaly killed weren't Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. Coulibaly wasn't punishing people who engaged in hate speech. To the contrary, he targeted shoppers specifically because he probably assumed they were Jewish. Third, there's a huge moral difference between putting someone on trial were they have a right to argue about not just the facts but also the law (and the right to appeal) and the summary execution (really lynching) or Coulibaly's terrorist attack. There's no proof that the terrorists trained with rebels armed by the U.S. Why not say they were armed by Russia or Libya or Turkey or France itself or Hezbollah or Iran or Jordan. Obama was criticized pretty heavily for waiting to vet rebel groups and figure out who was who before providing any aid. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on Jan 15, 2015 1:09:59 GMT -5
Okay, maybe I was wrong and Hollande isn't personally behind the spate of arrests of in France Wednesday. My French civics may be lacking.
And I definitely made a mistake -- I meant to say Kouachi, not Coulibaly. The point is that that Kouachi brothers, who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo share the same moral degeneracy as the French prosecutors who prosecuted the Charlie Hebdo staffer for his article about Sarkozy's in-laws. ISIS and Paris both kidnap journalists they don't like.
Among others, USA Today and CNN reported (from French secuity sources) that the Kouachis were with "the rebels" in Syria just months ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 15, 2015 1:36:22 GMT -5
Okay, maybe I was wrong and Hollande isn't personally behind the spate of arrests of in France Wednesday. My French civics may be lacking. And I definitely made a mistake -- I meant to say Kouachi, not Coulibaly. The point is that that Kouachi brothers, who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo share the same moral degeneracy as the French prosecutors who prosecuted the Charlie Hebdo staffer for his article about Sarkozy's in-laws. ISIS and Paris both kidnap journalists they don't like. Among others, USA Today and CNN reported (from French secuity sources) that the Kouachis were with "the rebels" in Syria just months ago. Coulibaly was the person Dieudonne said he admired. And your prior post mentioned folks don't deserve to be murdered or kidnapped. Well, of course one has to group those two together to create a false equivalence, because France isn't putting anyone to death. And once again, I don't agree that "hate speech" should be a crime. But it's a big leap to describe a prosecution in France to a kidnapping by a terrorist group that then beheads its prisoners. One is created by a democratic government with checks and balances, allows the accused a defense, subjects prosecution to the probing eyes of the media, allows for appeals, etc. The other doesn't. Moreover, I'm not a Charlie Hebdo expert, so I looked up what you're writing about. It seemed doubtful to me that France would actually imprison a cartoonist for hate speech rather than fining them. Sure enough, I found out who you were talking about (the Charlie Hebdo staff member who was accused of being hateful in his comments about Sarkozy's in-laws). He's Maurice Sinet (known as Siné). It seems that you're just plain wrong on the facts. Siné wasn't prosecuted by the government. Rather, he was fired by Charlie Hebdo for his article and cartoons. Then, he and Charlie Hebdo sued each other. Siné actually ended up winning his lawful termination lawsuit. So the French justice system didn't imprison Siné; it awarded him money! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9Does this new information alter your view at all or do you stick with what you previously believed regardless? |
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on Jan 15, 2015 1:50:48 GMT -5
Ah, you're right! Sinet was not prosecuted. So maybe Sacco was more on-point than I gave him credit for.
Now, there's still the matter of the 54 people arrested for speech just yesterday. France may be morally superior to ISIS because France has no formal death penalty. That's a legitimate point. But it's a difference of degree rather than principle. Both are using violence to enforce speech codes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 3:21:20 GMT -5
Further to try and paint the entire Muslim culture with the same broad brush, as if they all see this act of terrorism committed in France as just is wrong as there are plenty of Muslims who are just as upset by these senseless killings as those of us here. Not to mention, they don't all have the shit end of the stick. The bulk of those million dollar exotic supercars are sold to Arab Muslims. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 3:26:22 GMT -5
And I definitely made a mistake -- I meant to say Kouachi, not Coulibaly. The point is that that Kouachi brothers, who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo share the same moral degeneracy as the French prosecutors who prosecuted the Charlie Hebdo staffer for his article about Sarkozy's in-laws. ISIS and Paris both kidnap journalists they don't like. This seems more than a bit hyperbolic. You can disagree with speech laws all you like, but they don't both "kidnap" journalists they don't like. Both are using violence to enforce speech codes. I also disagree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 3:31:09 GMT -5
What I'm most interested in is where those guys got kalishnikovs. From training with the "rebels" in Syria that the US et al have been supplying? Well, they probably bought them with Saudi money. Supplied from Africa, the middle east, Asia, Russia, there's no shortage of places to get weapons. They probably didn't come from America or American money. In fact, I'd bet on it. Not to say the Saudi Arabian government likes this kind of thing, they don't. The problem is their relatives do, and aren't charged, and IF caught are given a slap on the wrist. There should be more accountability for those who are found to be funding terrorism. They want America to save them from being overthrown by ISIS, why don't they fund their own army instead of covering their Lamborghinis in Diamonds? |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 15, 2015 4:49:14 GMT -5
the point i was making was extremely unhappy section of immigrants caused by all sorts of factors + cartoonists blasphemy = kicking hornets nest and it is not just "a drawing" - to you and me it may be - but to upwards of 1 billion people it isnt. It's blasphemy. Also, not all Islamic radicals are the subject of abuse and discrimination - maybe have a look at srebrenica and genocide in the Balkans? maybe have a look at the Mcphersan Report in my country. I am sure Roquefort can tell you about issues in France. It's nothing to do with radicals - its the very fact that ALL muslims are potentially open to discrimination at an institutional level and violence from neo nazi / extremist groups. That's the daily reality 100,000s have to live in within Europe. As one example - i think most people in UK were very supportive of US intervention in Balkans to stop what we saw was genocide. Many people in balkans and beyond tho actually see it as atrocity commited by USA - i had classrooms full of kids in Greece who told me exactly that. I have seen Italian football stadium showing their support for Mladic while he was on trial in the Hague - there are large swathes of people in certain regions who support him. and just to add to irony of it all while UK was putting people like Mladic and Charles Taylor in the Hague, a lot of people across Europe (including UK itself) were saying "erm shouldnt you be in there too for what you are doing". complicated times, many factors, many problems. Bad time not to be subtle. and thank you Desanyway i know i've already said it but i'll leave it. From point of view tho looks like a lot of you could like my family in the eye and say "yeah sorry about Craig getting caught in that bomb blast but i HAVE to say what i went when i want regardless of the consequences." - I couldnt do it your families tho - who's right? only one's conscience can decide that. To ridicule someone who has the sh!#t end of the stick is certainly in poor taste...but to turn around and kill someone for that poor taste is just plain inexcusable and there is a huge gulf of difference between those two actions. Further to try and paint the entire Muslim culture with the same broad brush, as if they all see this act of terrorism committed in France as just is wrong as there are plenty of Muslims who are just as upset by these senseless killings as those of us here. Says the man who wanted dialogue then promptly dismisses currents of thought circulating widely in certain communities. Yeah that will help cool it down. And no not once did I say anything remotely like the second paragraph. If you cannot understand what i am trying to say then fine - but please ... trust me i'm not saying that at all. and here comes the loss of privacy...thanks hebdo - couldn't see that coming a mile off www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30816331We have lived through a civil war for 30 years in UK - we have gone through every permutation, action, reaction. It was so obvious our government would respond like this |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 15, 2015 9:01:39 GMT -5
To ridicule someone who has the sh!#t end of the stick is certainly in poor taste...but to turn around and kill someone for that poor taste is just plain inexcusable and there is a huge gulf of difference between those two actions. Further to try and paint the entire Muslim culture with the same broad brush, as if they all see this act of terrorism committed in France as just is wrong as there are plenty of Muslims who are just as upset by these senseless killings as those of us here. Says the man who wanted dialogue then promptly dismisses currents of thought circulating widely in certain communities. Yeah that will help cool it down. And no not once did I say anything remotely like the second paragraph. If you cannot understand what i am trying to say then fine - but please ... trust me i'm not saying that at all. and here comes the loss of privacy...thanks hebdo - couldn't see that coming a mile off www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30816331We have lived through a civil war for 30 years in UK - we have gone through every permutation, action, reaction. It was so obvious our government would respond like this This is an open dialog so I'm not sure what you're saying there, but I think my point was abundantly clear; that there is a huge difference between offending someone and killing someone and the former never justifies the latter and that's simply non-negotiable for civilization to work. And it's not that I can't understand what you're saying but rather, I think, that perhaps you are not articulating it clearly as your stance seems to be A)blame the victim, they should have known better and B) That this is the natural reaction from the Muslim culture based on hundreds of years of oppression which is a very broad brush that I don't think even begins to scratch the surface of what's going on here. If those are not you're points then feel free to address that but that is how you are coming across. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 15, 2015 11:17:46 GMT -5
I thought Sacco made very good points about the nature of satire and how it can turn into just bullying when you're going after those without power rather than those with it. I think it's off-base to say he's "blaming the victim." The one piece of context Sacco left out is that the Charlie Hebdo staffer who was fired for mocking Judaism was also prosecuted by the government. So I don't know how much of the hypocrisy charge can be borne by Hebdo if they were just caving in to the government. This news today that France has just arrested dozens of people today for "hate speech" just drives home the point. One set of thoughtcrimes has state violence exerted against it, another does not -- so ISIS is picking up the slack. Is there any moral difference between Hollande and Coulibaly? Neither Charlie Hebdo nor Dieudonne deserves to be murdered or kidnapped for their thoughts. What I'm most interested in is where those guys got kalishnikovs. From training with the "rebels" in Syria that the US et al have been supplying? They got the kalashnokovs in Belgium, where a small-time dealer in arms got them for Coulibaly for just a few thousands euros (the man surrendered himself to the police after the massacre). It seems that due to the unrest in places like Ukraine, there are lots of illegal weapons being smuggled in Europe for a massive mark-up, even after deducing the amount paid to the smugglers who carry the things across borders. Regarding the cartoon you link to: it's a very good one, and just the kind of thing that Charlie Hebdo would publish. In fact, in their post-masscre issue, they make fun of the politicians who suddenly put themselves forward as big fans of Charlie, with the mention "ten clowns dead, 10 more clowns come to replace them". These guys aren't above self-deprecation. And it is obscene for a representative from Saudi Arabia to claim sympathy for Charlie considering what's currently happening to Raif Badawi. Regarding the arrests these past fews days: France (and Europe as a whole) has many laws against anti-semitism and the promotion of hatred. I understand that such laws came from a historical atrocity and that nobody wants the shoah to happen again; and yet, I fear that such laws, as they are currently being applied, do more to stifle freedom of speech than to prevent another holocaust. I mean, one of the guys condemned this weekend was a drunk driver who started shouting at the policemen and told them in essence "I wished there were more Kouachi brothers". That's a drunk spouting bullshit, not a terrorist promoting hatred. Same thing for Dieudonné, the anti-semitic stand-up; he made the comment "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly", which is just the kind of thing he says. Inappropriate, sure; mean, probably; offensive to the victims' families, yes; but promoting hatred? I don't think so. It's a jerk mouthing off. Arresting him gives him too much importance, sends the message that free speech is fine as long as you're saying what the majority says, and does squat to prevent either terrorism or hatred. I think France erred badly there. Regarding Sacco's piece, I respectfully disagree with you. His page isn't about satire at all, it's about cultural sensitivity (and then it conflates people who don't like religion-based terrorism with people who want to kick all brown people from their shores). Satire is (according to wikipedia): ""a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement". By definition, it is supposed to show ridiculous images, but to be satire it must be seen in a certain context; it's not, as Sacco seems to be stating, a simple expression of our right to say offensive things. He draws a naked black man holding a banana and falling from a tree, and says "I'm allowed to offend, right"? He then draws a caricatural Jew grabbing money, again because "he's allowed to offend". Well, neither of these images, in this context, are offending. These two racist images are presented as racist images, as examples of offending pictures; nobody in their right mind could take offence at them here. They are not insulting, in this context, nor are they even satirical. (Charlie Hebdo did publish a "black person as monkey" cartoon a while ago: it was a fake poster for the far right Front National, which pretends not to be racist but does refer to black members of the government as monkeys. Now that is satire, and its offending imagery draws attention to the evils of the Front, the same way that seeing black people in chains in Roots was not offensive per se, as it was denouncing slavery). That moslems in France generally have it hard is undeniable (well, not moslems in general… moslems of North African origin, mostly, on account of being Arab, and moslems of equatorial Africa, mostly, on account of being black… it's not a religious thing, it's a "foreign" thing that points to failures at integrating immigrants into mainstream society). The shameful Algerian war and what followed it was a textbook case of how NOT to pursue decolonization, and the ensuing association with politicians of dubious integrity certainly didn't help things. Accordingly, that many second-generation French people of North African origin are feeling cast aside and downtrodden (and justly so, in most cases) is a real and actual problem, and it certainly deserves to be addressed by the government and by society as a whole. Fine, point taken. But the Charlie Hebdo thing isn't about how France mistreats its second-generation immigrants, it's about people killing others over cartoons. That's why I think Sacco's page is misguided, well-intended as it might have been. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 15, 2015 13:55:20 GMT -5
Says the man who wanted dialogue then promptly dismisses currents of thought circulating widely in certain communities. Yeah that will help cool it down. And no not once did I say anything remotely like the second paragraph. If you cannot understand what i am trying to say then fine - but please ... trust me i'm not saying that at all. and here comes the loss of privacy...thanks hebdo - couldn't see that coming a mile off www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30816331We have lived through a civil war for 30 years in UK - we have gone through every permutation, action, reaction. It was so obvious our government would respond like this This is an open dialog so I'm not sure what you're saying there, but I think my point was abundantly clear; that there is a huge difference between offending someone and killing someone and the former never justifies the latter and that's simply non-negotiable for civilization to work. And it's not that I can't understand what you're saying but rather, I think, that perhaps you are not articulating it clearly as your stance seems to be A)blame the victim, they should have known better and B) That this is the natural reaction from the Muslim culture based on hundreds of years of oppression which is a very broad brush that I don't think even begins to scratch the surface of what's going on here. If those are not you're points then feel free to address that but that is how you are coming across. 1. well as we cant talk about iraq 2 here .. then it strips a lot of context - enough to say that Iraq 2 led directly to london transport bombings, the failed attempt to blow up an airliner, etc etc. Suffice to say that drawing just looks like a giant f- you to one set of people and it could have gone one of three ways - 1. they protest, things get a little tasty (the french riot police are infamous across europe), and soon everyone is out to play with their own grievances against the police / government. We have recently seen it with the Paris and London riots - this could easily have been a catalyst. 2. bombing 3. guns It was 100% going to go one of three ways though. "Further to try and paint the entire Muslim culture with the same broad brush, as if they all see this act of terrorism committed in France as just is wrong" I said offended - totally different - please see the Muslim Council of Britain's website for their statement of how they perceive how that image will be perceived across the muslim world. If you look at the borders of Europe - recent wars in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote D'ivoire, mali, toureg rebellion, tchad, nigeria, congo, egypt, algeria, sudan, south sudan, northen kenya, ukraine, bosnia, kosovo, central african republic, kurds, iraq, yemen... etc etc. lot of refugeees, lot of traumatisd people, lot of angry people, lot of grievances. Add in that European far right movements, proven racist governments, (and genocide), lot of resentment in large sectors of Europe with new immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees - and you have something very unpleasant bubbling nicely - with the lid just about on it (bar riots in London and Paris). Then throw in a drawing of prophet... and soon everyone is out to play. It's no surprise that far right in dresden had their biggest turn out ever yesterday in Dresden. We've just seen it all in UK with Northern Ireland. Yes you can say what you like (although actually Sinn Fein couldnt be heard on TV by law for a period of time) but I wouldnt be using Bronzeagainbrian's history argument on Shankhill Road in Belfast. No need to pick at a scab - let it heal. During that 30 years of terrorism / freedom fighting depending on your position - money was pouring in from all over the world to finance IRA (eg. USA and Middle east) as a tool to paralyse UK. IRA were then involved in training people like FARC and PLO while US were pouring money in to fight them. While all that was going on IRA tried 1 semi successful attempt and 1 very close attempt at blowing up the UK government with US money while Margaret Thatcher, one of the people caught in the blast (google brighton bombing) described USA as a special friend. Whole thing was a playground of madness. We have dormant Unionist and Seperatist cells all over UK with arms caches, 30 years of experience of bringing a nuclear power to admit it cant win. Good number of people here know exactly how to fight and if you want to start a radical islamic terror war in UK dissident cells who did not sign the peace process will show you how to do it no problem. Here is a very mild example of what happens - Ireland v England soccer game. and here's some footage from london riots Its an unspoken rule here that while you can do what you like, some things are best left unsaid. This isnt america. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 16, 2015 4:13:49 GMT -5
and just so you are clear - i dont know about USA but we have british and euro nationals funraising and fighting for ISIS in Iraq against UK and US. eg. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853365/British-ISIS-fighter-blows-suicide-mission-Iraq.htmlit's tantamount to a proxy civil war. that drawing is a declaration of war to some people. anyone who thinks its "just a drawing" or merely "offensive" has completely missed the point of how its viewed amongst some people. whether one agrees with that reaction doesnt not stop it making a reality for people and thanks to iraq 2 we now have members of our society who went to train in terrorist camps in middle east to fight back. this isnt america - dont think our troops were welcomed back and thanked by large section of society. Lot of people view the whole thing as one of the biggest war crimes post world war 2 and you will find people frm all enthnic groups and religions and political persuasions who want the previous goverment in the hague. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 18:34:33 GMT -5
In America our freedom of speech does have restrictions. We can't distribute child porn, for example.
We CAN distribute hate filled propaganda promoting genocide though. And personally, I wouldn't be all that upset if we lost that right. Another thing we have to remember is that we were never conquered by Nazi's, and those who were may be a little more sensitive about the matter than us. Look how sensitive America is about 9/11. Now multiply 9/11 by a thousand and imagine how America would feel about it.
Not to mention, promoting hate against Muslims is also illegal in France. It just turns out that drawing Mohammad is not considered promoting hate on the same level as celebrating someone who had just murdered a dozen people.
|
|
