PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: novacadian on January 19, 2015, 07:24:34 pm
-
Seeing that the original Je suis Charlie thread is close, thought I would post this example of the hypocrisy of freedom of expression in France (and likely the rest of the west)....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-charlie-hebdo-differently
P.S. It just dawned on my how ironic it is that the original thread was closed when sparking other points of view. That may have been example enough.
-
That was my point in the original thread. Freedom of speech means the freedom that the mass likes what's going on. As soon as you speak against that, you commit a crime.
-
Something similar in German. (http://horsthundbrodt.com/wirsindnichtcharlie/) They are not Charlie either because they don't want to abuse sympathy, and they have never been in a similar life threatening situation. Engrossing/pocketing is not suitable.
And politicians of governments who don't respect the freedom of opinion and speech are the least worthy to join or even lead such sympathy and condolence gatherings.
-
P.S. It just dawned on my how ironic it is that the original thread was closed when sparking other points of view. That may have been example enough.
I asked for the original thread to be closed because it was drifiting in many different directions, away from its original purpose of expressing our feelings about the cruel crime. When conspiracy theories and calls for nuclear war popped up, I simply had enough of it.
Of course there are many more crimes happening every day. In Afghanistan, for example, bombings with many deaths are - terrible as it may sound - part of daily life by now. But does this make the Charlie Hebdo murders any less terrible?
I would also like to point out that in the original thread neither you nor Donari answered to criticism on your points of view, and on your ways of expressing your points of view.
So what are you complaining about now?
-
You have it or you don't. A couple of days ago David Cameron (UK PM) said it is acceptable to cause offence against religious groups; yet, we have laws in the UK that make causing offence a criminal.... offence. You cannot have it both ways. Freedom of speech is black or white. You can't favour one group or section of society with preferential protection.
Long time no see ;o)
-
Welcome back Idoru! :)
And yes, Germany also has a current discussion about whether strengthening or removing a "blasphemy act". A balance between freedom of religion and freedom of opinion is not trivial.
Funny thing: The word "freedom" has so little meaning unless you explain its context. One of the quirks of "liberal" politics.
-
here is a cartoon about how our press understands freedom of speech:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-18-at-9.46.05-PM.png (http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-18-at-9.46.05-PM.png)
The cartoonist worked for Charlie Hebdo and was fired for this cartoon in 2009. Obviously not every religion is treated the same in our press.
-
Well after all Christianity is a heresy of the Jewish faith and Islam is a heresy of the Christian faith.
You can't blame the Founders because the Vorta got the message wrong and the Jem'Hadar couldn't understand what the Vorta were trying to say.
It is sad that so much of the world is based on a flawed game of telephone tag.
-
hello
as a french i can explain a little about this for helping you to understand
one day some year ago everybody have see dieudoné on the french tv making a antisemit sketch after this he have been banned of the tv
not only on tv but never again you have see is name on a movie or a good paper in a newspaper about his show some other can have make their "mea culpa" and stop for coming back to an ordinary show whit ordinary joke not him he have go more and more in the "bad" way he is not the only to do this but the real problem is now many year after whitout the mass media whitout the tv he turn to make is show all around the country in the more big theatre the zenith (6000 /7000 people inside and all full )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Z%C3%A9nith
and some other big theatre all around the country and he make a lot of money whit and this is the part who are the more hard for the french government
not what he think but how many people ear him
-
Liberty of expression doesn't cover Racism... please stop amalgam
-
Great sample, Calmus. But also leading further: Generalization is dangerous and often wrong. Governments suppressing people deserve criticism; but hating a whole nation (e.g. anti-semitism means hating all Jews in general) is a different issue. Not everyone is able to tell these details apart.
KnowYourMeme: Death To All Juice (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/death-to-all-juice)
Especially in Germany, this is a very delicate topic. Yes, in World War II, Nazis killed millions of Jews. But today, 3/4 century later, most of us are not Nazis anymore, so I believe even (and especially) Germans are allowed to be discerning regarding the decisions of the Israeli government. Our ancestors have been the "bad example" the current generation should avoid to repeat.
-
P.S. It just dawned on my how ironic it is that the original thread was closed when sparking other points of view. That may have been example enough.
So what are you complaining about now?
No complaints really. Just an attempt to expose the hypocrisy involved.
It is my belief that the west is directly responsible for much of the militant Muslim terrorism. More so than the doctrines that said terrorists misuse in their cause/crimes. If, for example, a publication/comedian were to mock Israel with Nazi overtones of their treatment of those in Palistine it would most likely be regarded as anti-Semitic and condemned in the west. Yet turning that same style of mockery against Islam is condoned. It is doubly ironic as Semitic refers to a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language groups that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.
So the example is not truly Anti-Semitic, but anti-Jewish/anti-Israel. That is what would be really condemned when we begin to dig into the issue. That is when it becomes political. That is when the hypocrisy becomes more evident to be politically motivated and used as a tool of propaganda to support such things as the plight of Palistine and the bombing of innocents in such places as Syria, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc.. Not by suicide bombers but by drone and other air attacks by the west.
If exposing such hypocrisy seems like complaining to you then please ignore the hundreds of thousands of innocents that have died in the name of the War On Terror. Put your blinders back in place and feel confident that every issue that the western media presents to you is done in a fair and unbiased nature. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
P.S. The reason this answer was not placed in the original thread is that by the time of my return (not a regular here any more) the thread had been closed/censured due to your request. Strange correlation by my way of thinking, that you should now be the one to accuse me of not answering the concerns.
-
War On Terror
War is terror (fear of violence), or even worse (certainty of violence). "Fighting fire with fire" is not trivial and highly risky.
The most annoying reply from a government I recently heard was a Federal Press Conference where a spokesman replied on a question by Tilo Jung (Jung und Naiv), if our government sees any relation between raising terror threat levels and drone killings, that the German government is not really interested in debating the reasons for terror. Of course not. Why would a conservative government be interested in eliminating terror, when terror is the best excuse to limit public rights for a promise of enhanced security?
"1984" was not intended to be a manual...
-
No complaints really. Just an attempt to expose the hypocrisy involved.
[long monologue deleted]
P.S. The reason this answer was not placed in the original thread is that by the time of my return (not a regular here any more) the thread had been closed/censured due to your request. Strange correlation by my way of thinking, that you should now be the one to accuse me of not answering the concerns.
I have explained in detail why I asked for the original thread to be closed. To speak of censorship is simply absurd, after all you could open a thread of your own.
But even now you are still not giving answers to criticism on your points of view, and on your ways of expressing your points of view.
I conceded that many other terrible things are happening all over the world, and you are right that many of them are much less covered in Western media than the Charlie Hebdo murders. But when I ask whether these other terrible things make the Charlie Hebdo murders any less terrible, you do not answer - again.
-
.
You were saying some pretty despicable things in the other thread. You have every right to say them, but seriously? Freedom of expression is a human right.
Germany also has a current discussion about whether strengthening or removing a "blasphemy act".
A blasphemy act? Wait, you mean a "Your Rights End Where My Feelings Begin" Act?
-
§166 StGB (German Penal Code) claims monetary or prison sentence for insulting a religious denomination or organization if the amount or method may breach the public order. So the legal hurdles may be high (about a riot to be expected with certainty), but there is still a probability.
Not many religions are notorious for being easily provokable, though... some level of bias is not surprising here.
-
I conceded that many other terrible things are happening all over the world, and you are right that many of them are much less covered in Western media than the Charlie Hebdo murders. But when I ask whether these other terrible things make the Charlie Hebdo murders any less terrible, you do not answer - again.
The Charlie Hebdo murders were a sad and terrible acts. Such acts are not condoned by me. There does seem to be a hypocrisy of defending Charlie Hebdo's mockery of Islam when it would have been condemned if, say, it was directed at the Jewish religion. That is not meant as an attack against the Jewish religion but used as an example of the hypocrisy.
All those other terrible things are related. The west is creating much of the terror. Studies have shown the marked increase of terrorist activity in direct relation to the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. Without the open dialogue of how the west is bringing their own form of terror round the world we shall continue to spiral into more and more violence. This plays into the hands of the multi-national corporations making profits from the wars and the unrest that is generated.
Not sure what you mean by how the way my views have been expressed need explaining unless you mean it made my points not understandable?
-
I conceded that many other terrible things are happening all over the world, and you are right that many of them are much less covered in Western media than the Charlie Hebdo murders. But when I ask whether these other terrible things make the Charlie Hebdo murders any less terrible, you do not answer - again.
The Charlie Hebdo murders were a sad and terrible acts. Such acts are not condoned by me. There does seem to be a hypocrisy of defending Charlie Hebdo's mockery of Islam when it would have been condemned if, say, it was directed at the Jewish religion. That is not meant as an attack against the Jewish religion but used as an example of the hypocrisy.
Thank you for clarifying this. But as I said in one of my postings in the original thread:
Charlie Hebdo publishes satire. About everything they consider worth of being satirised. In other words, they are not an anti-Muslim / anti-Islam publication, but they target also Christians, the Pope, or politicians of every wing. Anything, anyone.
This is a link to a short video that might make this a bit more clear. It also shows and translates several other covers of Charlie Hebdo:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/8/7515673/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-translated
Charlie Hebdo has been in trouble more than once. But until recently nobody thought of murder. You might wish to google for "Charlie Hebdo" in connection with "Charles de Gaulle". Or google for jewish jokes in Charlie Hebdo. In short, do some research!
All those other terrible things are related. The west is creating much of the terror. Studies have shown the marked increase of terrorist activity in direct relation to the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. Without the open dialogue of how the west is bringing their own form of terror round the world we shall continue to spiral into more and more violence. This plays into the hands of the multi-national corporations making profits from the wars and the unrest that is generated.
Wars and terror for power and profit. Perfect example is the War for Oil under Bush jr., but historically speaking this is nothing the West has exclusive rights on. See for example the Iran - Iraq wars.
Not sure what you mean by how the way my views have been expressed need explaining unless you mean it made my points not understandable?
I am talking about my posting from the original thread which I quote here:
Reply #18 on: January 10, 2015, 06:44:18 PM
Quote from: novacadian on January 10, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
They poked at the hornets' nest and were bitten.
They were not bitten, but savagely slaughtered. Does this really seem like a proportionate, adequate reaction to you?
If someone throws paint bombs, for example, we can talk about bitten. It is still wrong, but at least moderate, and does not kill anybody.
Bitten. Yeah.
PS This post does not look too nice because of the mix of quotes. But I think it is still clear who said what.
-
If a man who is dressed "provocatively" is beaten and raped on his way home from work, is the rape his fault for having dressed provocatively?
This is what it sounds like when you blame the authors at charlie hebdo for "poking the hornet's nest."
In this hypothetical example, its erroneous to look at the victim and blame their prior actions when the violent action was commited by the rapist - not the victim. It makes more sense in this example to look at the rapist and their prior actions instead.
Using this simple example, you can apply the same logic to the hebdo case. The problem was not with the things that the victim did prior to the violence, the problem was on the shooter's side prior to the incident.
-
Yeah, what he ^ said. Rigwyn's player is one sharp, thoughtful being
RR
-
Another curiosity currently happening in Germany (and possibly elsewhere too?): On one hand, when there is violence in the (probably abused) name of the Islam, Muslims usually counter that "this is not the Islam"; on the other hand, Islam leaders appear to be uneasy about discussing the real meaning of the Islam in public. As if they were afraid that the one famous quote from the Koran related to killing people is not the only point of view. But well, I wouldn't try to explain the Crusades either with my hardly existing knowledge about the Bible. I know so little about all the different "Holy Books" that confusion is all that remains to me. My hope was that religions were all about encouraging societies to a cooperative life, and any violence is always an abuse of a religion. Is that too simple thinking?
-
Nice article. Some of the things written reflect my own thoughts and concerns on the matter.
I think it's important to sometimes remind ourselves that it's all the different individuals, the people that make up the world... and also, that the Earth isn't flat :P
Here's a "Q&A" by an American Muslim woman:
Ask a Muslim: 10 Weird Questions I'm Often Asked, But am Happy to Answer (http://mic.com/articles/21665/ask-a-muslim-10-weird-questions-i-m-often-asked-but-am-happy-to-answer)
It's not related to the recent events but it might still prove to be an interesting read for you, if only to have an insight from a Muslim herself and have a different perspective on some things.
...My hope was that religions were all about encouraging societies to a cooperative life...
Many could tell you that they not only believe in it, they live it :)
-
My feeling is that if we in the west do not except that our foriegn policy to the Muslim world is helping to incite the terrorist violence upon us and do not stand up to halt the violence that our military or military puppets exert upon them for corporate interests and the military complex then this situation will only spiral further out of control. In my mind Charlie aids/aided in that continued conflict. That does not let the murderers off the hook, nor does it forgive Charlie for stirring that pot of hatred. For that reason je ne suis pas Charlie.
-
My feeling is that if we in the west do not except that our foriegn policy to the Muslim world is helping to incite the terrorist violence upon us and do not stand up to halt the violence that our military or military puppets exert upon them for corporate interests and the military complex then this situation will only spiral further out of control. In my mind Charlie aids/aided in that continued conflict. That does not let the murderers off the hook, nor does it forgive Charlie for stirring that pot of hatred. For that reason je ne suis pas Charlie.
Again, you do not answer. Which in itself is an answer, of course.
I will not pursue your silence any further, my time is way too precious for this.