Charlie Hebdo

Religion and Secularism
101
I have been wandering if the whole situation with Charlie Hebdo is significantly different to inviting a guest into your house and then verbally abusing his/her ancestors, parents or children?
Well, your mind must have been wandering instead of wondering. France did not insult Muslims, it was a cartoonist. What you are saying is that if I throw a party and one of my guests insults another guest, the offended guest has the right to kill everyone in my household?
Is publishing intentionally offensive to millions of people (French citizens actually) material can be called a democracy and freedom of speech? Were these images newsworthy?
Yes, that is freedom of speech. When someone compares president Obama to Hitler we are all offended, but we dismiss that as "human stupidity". We do not blow up a supermarket to avenge Obama's good name.
I believe that terrorism is the real threat to our society, but so is human stupidity.
Terrorism is an expression of human stupidity. It's like a schoolyard bully who makes everyone dance to HIS tune.
102

:red: Sorry for the spelling mistake re: wandering instead of wondering.
“What you are saying is that if I throw a party and one of my guests insults another guest, the offended guest has the right to kill everyone in my household? " - NO, this is NOT what I am saying.
“The typical defence of free speech follows a predictable line. More frequently than not, it begins with a rehearsal of Voltaire: ‘I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ Never mind that the great philosophe never uttered these words. Rather, they came from a 1906 book written by E. Beatrice Hall about Voltaire and his friends, and her fictionalized account of how Voltaire responded to the burning of a friend’s book. Perhaps if the spirit of Voltaire could speak, he would say, ‘I may disagree with what you quote me as saying, but I will defend even in death your right to misquote me.’” You may find more in this article Two Freedoms: Freedom of expression and freedom from racial vilification | Australian Human Rights Commission
The only point I agree with you on is” “Terrorism is an expression of human stupidity.”
And here is the link re: how our “brave” leaders marching to defend our freedom of speech and expression.
Paris march: TV wide shots reveal a different perspective on world leaders at largest demonstration in France’s history | The Independent | The Independent

103
I believe that terrorism is the real threat to our society, but so is human stupidity.
Short, but to the point. However, there is of course a difference in how we react on both: we forbid terrorism, hunt terrorists with decidedness with the risk of them being killed, but we criticise stupidity. That is right so. Many here, in defending free speech, seem also to defend stupidity. If I say that publishing such cartoons in our present circumstances is unwise, the reaction is 'free speech!', 'patting terrorists on the shoulders!'. Yes, in Europe, afaik, hate speech is forbidden. If you don't know why, then study the function of propaganda in the Third Reich. I recently read in a Swiss newspaper that some Jews see strong parallels with the cartoons about Islam now and cartoons about Jews in the 30s in Germany. Maybe you should recollect the role of the 'RTLMC' radio station in Rwanda in the killing of thousands of people: Anti-Tutsi articles and graphic cartoons began appearing in the Kangura newspaper from around 1990] In another thread we are discussing ethics: my standpoint is that in principle everybody should be able to enter the ethical (and political) discourse. 'Everybody' of course means 'everybody who wants to bring in arguments, and listen to those of others'. If people start to claim that some of the participants should be excluded, he is leaving the ethical discourse. Killing people is one way to exclude people of an ethical discourse, but insulting, provoking or pleading that they leave the country are others. Democracy is not just freedom of speech (or the right to vote). Democracy is the right of everybody who wants to play according democratic rules, to partake in democratic processes. The majority of Muslims that live in the West do. Muslims may criticise that Mohammed is pictured in cartoons. But they are not allowed to forbid them. They can hope that cartoonists are convinced by their arguments, but if they are not, yes, then they have to live with them. A democracy does not work when people have no democratic mentality. No set of rules or laws can create a democracy: they can only make democracy possible. Is it hypocrisy to arrest hate-speechers now? Yes. But France should have started actions against hate-speech already a long time ago, before tensions had grown so high. A social policy to optimise the chances of French Muslims to partake in all corners of French society, like work, media, politics etc, so to really integrate them, would have been the best option.
104
:red: Sorry for the spelling mistake re: wandering instead of wondering. "What you are saying is that if I throw a party and one of my guests insults another guest, the offended guest has the right to kill everyone in my household? " - NO, this is NOT what I am saying.
Well, you may not think so, but that is what you are saying. Salman Rushdie calls it the "but" brigade. Like, "yes, terrorism is terrible, but.............." . There is no excuse for killing another human, except in self-defense. But according to scripture this is a negotiable premise. Assuming to know "god's will" who should die is arrogance of the highest order. Without the OT and Qu'ran these "fundamentalists" would not exist. These are not acts of war from self-defense, this is a declared religious war against the West, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts".
"The typical defence of free speech follows a predictable line. More frequently than not, it begins with a rehearsal of Voltaire: ‘I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ Never mind that the great philosophe never uttered these words. Rather, they came from a 1906 book written by E. Beatrice Hall about Voltaire and his friends, and her fictionalized account of how Voltaire responded to the burning of a friend’s book. Perhaps if the spirit of Voltaire could speak, he would say, ‘I may disagree with what you quote me as saying, but I will defend even in death your right to misquote me.’" You may find more in this article https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/two-freedoms-freedom-expression-and-freedom-racial-vilification
well you may have a look at the Supreme Court case of Hustler v Falwell
In a 1983 parody of an advertisement for Campari, Hustler described the then-prominent fundamentalist Protestant minister Jerry Falwell having a drunken, incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued Flynt, alleging libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court in Flynt's favor. The decision strengthened free speech rights in relation to parodies of public figures. See Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine,_Inc._v._Falwell The only point I agree with you on is" "Terrorism is an expression of human stupidity."
And here is the link re: how our "brave" leaders marching to defend our freedom of speech and expression. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-march-tv-wide-shots-reveal-a-different-perspective-on-world-leaders-at-largest-demonstration-in-frances-history-9972895.html
To me this is the profound message contained in the "march".
But amid all the criticism, student Axel Fougner effectively represented the views of many on social media by writing today: “Hypocritical world leaders showing up in Paris does not in any way reduce the sincerity of the millions who marched for #jesuischarlie."
105

“Well, you may not think so, but that is what you are saying.” - I can only quote Frank Luntz here: “We as Americans (Canadians? :slight_smile: and as humans have very selective hearing and very selective memory. We only hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.”
I know many people who agree with this: Judge Jeanine: We need to kill those hell-bent on killing us| Latest News Videos | Fox News, but I personally prefer this: Charlie Hebdo: Does Fox News Terrorise Us? Russell Brand The Trews (E232) - YouTube
%-P

106
"Well, you may not think so, but that is what you are saying." - I can only quote Frank Luntz here: "We as Americans (Canadians? :-) and as humans have very selective hearing and very selective memory. We only hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest." I know many people who agree with this: http://video.foxnews.com/v/3982602485001/judge-jeanine-we-need-to-kill-those-hell-bent-on-killing-us/?#sp=show-clips, but I personally prefer this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPK7t5B2UN4 %-P
You quote Frank Luntz, the most insideous propagandist in US history? At least Limbaugh is visible. Frank Luntz, is the prompter behind the curtains. That man has made a hansome living on false political slander, by his own words. And if you watch Fox News, you have lost all credibility with me. Sorry Bud, you cannot claim to be well informed in my book. IMO, people on Fox are a bunch of glib clowns and thats why I laugh at them. And what he said is true, but only because the people he talks about watch Fox. Are you perhaps one who reguarly follows Fox. You may want to try to listen to more objective analyses by real news reporters and commentators, instead of blindly believing those who spout right wing propaganda. I never watch Fox News, but I am sure that somehow they found a way to blame Obama for this massacre. Oh, and he didn't even show up for the "solidarity march". I am sure they twisted this into "Obama is sympathetic to terrorists". Of course he is the one who actually brought justice to Bin Laden, while Bush said; "we don't care about Bin Laden". http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bush;+we+don't+care+about+bin+laden&qpvt=Bush;+we+don't+care+about+bin+Laden&FORM=VDRE But he has the right to free speech and should expect ridicule from "sane" people. No violence, no behaeadings, no whip lashes, no stoning. That happens in theocracies, not in democracies.
107

So explain to me why publishing cartoons of Mohammed is a question of freedom of expression when it causes offence to the Muslim community?

108
So explain to me why publishing cartoons of Mohammed is a question of freedom of expression when it causes offence to the Muslim community?
Because they call us any name they wish with impunity. Do we bomb a country because a person said something that offends us, such as "the great White Devil, the great Satan, Death to the Infidels, fatwahs against cartoonists, authors, and movies? Are you offended by such speech? Do you bomb a crowded street? Islamists blow up each others mosques, for god's sake. My motto is , "clean up your own back yard before you criticize mine." Don't give me a "but" please, I understand the other issues. They have been there for the past 2000 years, oh what date is it, 2015 AD (Anno Domini)? Well done religion, well done. IMO, perhaps a little more Humanism than religious fervor might be a more enlightened path than the path of exclusive zealotry, which has produced a continual state of war for centuries of one faction against another, not to forget foreign occupiers.
109

They bomb without impunity. Tell that to the people of Iraq

110
They bomb without impunity. Tell that to the people of Iraq
I never approved of the way we went into Iraq and involved ourselves in a theocratic civil war. This should have been a covert operation from the beginning. Information is what got us to Bin Laden, not bombs.
111

and all of these problems in Europe are caused by the invasion of Iraq and not some stupid French public school boy magazine. Where there was once peace there is now anarchy and chaos.
All a consequence of disastrous American foreign policy (if you can call it policy and not a knee jerk reaction)

112
and all of these problems in Europe are caused by the invasion of Iraq and not some stupid French public school boy magazine. Where there was once peace there is now anarchy and chaos. All a consequence of disastrous American foreign policy (if you can call it policy and not a knee jerk reaction)
You are free to say snide, sarcastic, disrespectful, mocking, lambasting, etc., things about the pathetically inept, and unforgiveably stupid, US invasion of Iraq. I know I have.
113
So explain to me why publishing cartoons of Mohammed is a question of freedom of expression when it causes offence to the Muslim community?
You could as well ask, "Why should Muslims be able to publish copies of the Koran and the sayings of the Prophet, and to publish inane interpretations, that cause great offense, and possibly, even, lead to harm of others?" (I think that they should be allowed to do this, BTW, despite my belief that some of it is potentially very harmful to humanity.) Charlie also mocked and caused offense to the Catholic Church. Today, the Pope said that the killing of Charlie was ludicrous. And the Pope followed this immediately with, "BUT", all religions have their dignity, and there should be limits on freedom of speech, that includes not mocking faiths. I defend the Pope's right to say that, despite my completely disagreeing with it, despite my feeling some sense of offense at his saying that. I believe that religions are superstitious nonsense. I believe that this is an important truth that the world would benefit from understanding and accepting. But that is not the opinion or belief of most people in the world. In fact, many people, would feel some sense of offense, at just hearing those words. You can find plenty of examples of people who mock atheistic beliefs. Do I think that those people should be free to do so, even though it might rub me the wrong way? Yes, they should be free to do so.
114
...Many here, in defending free speech, seem also to defend stupidity. If I say that publishing such cartoons in our present circumstances is unwise, the reaction is 'free speech!', 'patting terrorists on the shoulders!'...
Perhaps, that is due to the context in which you said it. The context being that 17 people had just been murdered by terrorists, because someone had done something, that, in your opinion was unwise. Of course you don't believe that people should be murdered because someone did something that was possibly unwise. But people were murdered, for someone doing something that you think was unwise. Guess what? People get to be unwise about what they say. And IMO, they should not need to fear that they, or others, will be murdered because of it. Can you call these people unwise? Yes. But if you call them unwise right after they have been murdered, you might get a reaction, from some, that you don't like. But if anyone tries to murder you, because of it, I would wish that I could be there to stop them.
... Yes, in Europe, afaik, hate speech is forbidden. If you don't know why, then study the function of propaganda in the Third Reich. I recently read in a Swiss newspaper that some Jews see strong parallels with the cartoons about Islam now and cartoons about Jews in the 30s in Germany. Maybe you should recollect the role of the 'RTLMC' radio station in Rwanda in the killing of thousands of people: Anti-Tutsi articles and graphic cartoons began appearing in the Kangura newspaper from around 1990]
This is a good point, considering that, I think, most US citizens tend to assume that most modern industrialized nations have some version of our Constitution's 1st Amendment right. Apparently, they don't, and I think that your point about why "hate speech" is criminalized in Europe, is noteworthy.
... In another thread we are discussing ethics: my standpoint is that in principle everybody should be able to enter the ethical (and political) discourse. 'Everybody' of course means 'everybody who wants to bring in arguments, and listen to those of others'. If people start to claim that some of the participants should be excluded, he is leaving the ethical discourse. Killing people is one way to exclude people of an ethical discourse, but insulting, provoking or pleading that they leave the country are others. .
Most of this I agree with. But because the context of this thread is about satirical cartoonists, I think that you go too far in suggesting that anything that some people may find insulting or provoking, is, necessarily unethical to express. Personally, I think that it is quite ethical to make fun of people who use power in destructive ways. Some of those people who are made fun of will feel insulted or provoked, but they might also, be influenced to moderate their destructiveness. People, in general, might be enlightened as to how ludicrous the actions of the objects of the satirical depictions really are.
... Democracy is not just freedom of speech (or the right to vote). Democracy is the right of everybody who wants to play according democratic rules, to partake in democratic processes. The majority of Muslims that live in the West do. Muslims may criticise that Mohammed is pictured in cartoons. But they are not allowed to forbid them. They can hope that cartoonists are convinced by their arguments, but if they are not, yes, then they have to live with them. A democracy does not work when people have no democratic mentality. No set of rules or laws can create a democracy: they can only make democracy possible.
Preach on, Brother! I'm with you here.
... Is it hypocrisy to arrest hate-speechers now? Yes. But France should have started actions against hate-speech already a long time ago, before tensions had grown so high. A social policy to optimise the chances of French Muslims to partake in all corners of French society, like work, media, politics etc, so to really integrate them, would have been the best option.
Again, I agree. I am disappointed with the hypocrisy of the French arrests of hate-speechers now. I so want to love the French, their women, their wine, their musical language, their fluidity in regards to sexuality, their chocolate pastries, but then they go and have to be jerks, sometimes.
115
and all of these problems in Europe are caused by the invasion of Iraq and not some stupid French public school boy magazine. Where there was once peace there is now anarchy and chaos. All a consequence of disastrous American foreign policy (if you can call it policy and not a knee jerk reaction)
That is patently untrue. Terrorist acts were being committed long before we got involved. In fact religious wars were being waged long before the US even existed. I do agree that our involvement was a knee jerk reaction and did more harm than good. Apparently we did not learn from history.
Holy Land Pilgrimages , Cause of the Crusades The reason and cause of the crusades was a war between Christians and Moslems which centered around the city of Jerusalem and the Holy places of Palestine. The City of Jerusalem held a Holy significance to the Christian religion. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem commemorated the hill of crucifixion and the tomb of Christ's burial. Pilgrims throughout the Middle Ages made sacred pilgrimages to the Holy city of Jerusalem and the church. Although the city of Jerusalem was held by the Saracens the Christian pilgrims had been granted safe passage to visit the Holy city. In 1065 Jerusalem was taken by the Turks, who came from the kingdom of ancient Persia. 3000 Christians were massacred and the remaining Christians were treated so badly that throughout Christendom people were stirred to fight in crusades. These actions aroused a storm of indignation throughout Europe and awakened the desire to rescue the Holy Land from the grasp of the "infidel."
http://www.lordsandladies.org/cause-of-crusades.htm Please note that even the Crusades were preceded by regional religious wars, as it had for centuries all over the world. I certainly do not absolve christian zealots for their terrorist acts even as early as the the 4th century. You may want to read up on Hypatia of Alexandria
Hypatia of Alexandria was a woman of grace and eloquence, of beauty and wisdom. She was born before her time, and she died before her time.
http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm The point is that all religions claim exclusive knowledge of Truth and encourage, if not compel, the faithful to "advance the cause" of their truth (by all means necessary). Exclusivity is by definition prejudicial to other beliefs, and until religion itself starts forbidding murder "in the name of god", zealots feel entitled to commit violence in his name. Carlin nailed it in this little clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE (warning, crude language) I find it ironic that atheist are especially singled out as "unclean and evil unbelievers" and therefore must be "converted" and saved from themselves. Atheists don't wage religious wars.
116

FWIW, firstly consider prudence. From the wiki here]

The word comes from Old French prudence (14th century), from Latin prudentia (foresight, sagacity). It is often associated with wisdom, insight, and knowledge. In this case, the virtue is the ability to judge between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place.
Secondly, from the wiki on the precautionary principle here] Formulations:
Many definitions of the precautionary principle exist. Precaution may be defined as "caution in advance," "caution practised in the context of uncertainty," or informed prudence. Two ideas lie at the core of the principle: 1. an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm. 2. the concept of proportionality of the risk and the cost and feasibility of a proposed action
Thirdly, from this BBC article here] Charlie Hebdo: Muslim media anger at new cartoon
"Freedom of expression should end at and not cross the limits of offending others over their colour, race or religion," he adds. "Insulting religions should be legally treated as racism."
Pride and arrogance:
A counter-terrorism analyst interviewed by the paper strongly criticises the West's approach to other cultures in general, saying its "pride and arrogance do not conform to the objective reality that we live in a multicultural society".
And from the wiki on freedom of speech here]
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property[clarification needed][citation needed] to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
But:
Every government restricts speech to some degree. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not.
Bold added by me. Apparently, there are limitations wrt freedom of speech/expression in the real world.
117
... Charlie Hebdo: Muslim media anger at new cartoon
"Freedom of expression should end at and not cross the limits of offending others over their colour, race or religion," he adds. "Insulting religions should be legally treated as racism."
Pride and arrogance:
A counter-terrorism analyst interviewed by the paper strongly criticises the West's approach to other cultures in general, saying its "pride and arrogance do not conform to the objective reality that we live in a multicultural society".
.
Kkwan, Of course there are legitimate limits to free speech. And I would not discourage anyone who wants to exercise wisdom, caution, and prudence. But really, you think that insulting religions should be illegal? Wow, an atheist, encouraging blasphemy laws. That's sad. The counter-terror-agent strategy advocated above wouldn't even work if we all decided to observe all of the mandates and precepts and rituals of Islam, because there would always be another more restrictive and demanding version of Islam, dictated by those who are most willing to use violent tactics to impose their particular version on the rest of us virtual Muslims.
118

An effective counter-terror strategy would be to first, as GdB suggests, do whatever we can to insure that people do not experience the oppressive conditions that can promote individuals to use ideological beliefs as a framework and justification for violence against others. Secondly, do whatever is practical to prevent terrorists from successfully engaging in violence. Third, do what we can to insure that violent actions by terrorists do not achieve the results that they hoped for. Fourth, make fun of the destructive ideologies, that so richly deserve it.

119

I hope you realize that everyone who commented here was expressing his or her opinion about contentious issues and might have insulted someone or hurt someone’s feelings.
Should you therefore be prevented from expressing your opinions?
Lois

120
Kkwan, Of course there are legitimate limits to free speech. And I would not discourage anyone who wants to exercise wisdom, caution, and prudence. But really, you think that insulting religions should be illegal? Wow, an atheist, encouraging blasphemy laws. That's sad.
Of course, "insulting religions" is not illegal per se, but it is tantamount to unjustified prejudice. In that sense, it contravenes the precautionary principle to do no harm.
The counter-terror-agent strategy advocated above wouldn't even work if we all decided to observe all of the mandates and precepts and rituals of Islam, because there would always be another more restrictive and demanding version of Islam, dictated by those who are most willing to use violent tactics to impose their particular version on the rest of us virtual Muslims.
It is not a "counter-terror-agent strategy". It is only a comment that the "objective reality" is "we live in a multicultural society" and as such, we should not impose our "values" on other cultures.