Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. As for freedom of the press, it is enshrined in the law of 1881. But this freedom has limits: racism, anti-Semitism, racial hatred, and justification of terrorism are not opinions. They are offences.
Teacher beheaded near Paris after showing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad
- Thread starter SinNombre
- Start date
@Abizzz @utdalltheway
Now you're conflating criticism (reasonable) with Islamophobia (unreasonable) which are different.
I may have got annoyed last night and articulated the point poorly but just like this mental degenerates target innocent people to carry out abhorrent acts, legit Islamophobia which is a lot more widespread and for some reason acceptable in society also ends up targeting a pretty large group of people who through no fault of their own get associated with the degenerates. People get attacked, made to feel like the other on the street and public transport, at work places and even affect job opportunities. But naawwww who wants to acknowledge that!! 2 billion backward cnuts need to sort their shit out grrrr!! Not in these words but its not even like you have to try read in-between the lines, it's fecking obvious.
Take issue with me losing my shit fair do's but if you use it to brush the broader point I was making then whatever.
I think I'll stay out of this thread, I was in here with patience and intent to try get a few of the forum Islamist experts to challenge their views but thats not what they want, they just want to use every moment and incident they can to continue to undermine good people and ultimately the faith of a quarter of humanity. Some of the stuff that the mods let fly round here blatantly encourages ignorance and bigoted ideas, if it was the Jews or any other group it would get called out but cos its Islam its 'criticism even if the logic is absolutely moronic. The double standards and hypocrisy is insane.
Don't know why I even bother.
Last edited:
No one’s picking on all Muslims, just the crazy ones that either condone, or carry out these attacks - all because of a few feckin cartoons.
Give me strength.
Give me strength.
Freedom of speech is considered an “essential freedom” in France. It is protected by the 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights, which is incorporated by reference into the French Constitution. It is also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, to which France is a party. Yet, while French law considers free speech to be an essential component of a democratic society, it is not seen as absolute. French legislators, and French courts, seek to balance freedom of speech with other imperatives, such as other freedoms and rights, and public order. Thus, freedom of expression may be limited for the sake of protecting privacy, protecting the presumption of innocence, and preventing defamation and insults. Freedom of expression may also be limited for the sake of protecting public order. It is therefore illegal to incite others to commit a crime, even when no crime ends up being actually committed. French law also prohibits hate speech, and speech denying or justifying the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. Additionally, French law prohibits defamation against government institutions and office-holders, as well as disrespecting the national anthem and flag in the context of public events organized or regulated by public authorities.
Despite its foundational importance, freedom of speech was never intended to be absolute. In contrast to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights provided limits to freedom of expression in its very definition. Article 10 declares that “[n]o one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.” Article 11 provides that “[a]ny citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.” Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights declares that
Thus, French law seeks to balance freedom of speech with other imperatives, as shown by extensive jurisprudence on this topic. The Cour de cassation, France’s highest court for civil and criminal matters, established the general principle that “restrictions to freedom of expression should be interpreted narrowly.” They must also be proportional to the expected harm, as shown by a 1933 decision by the Council of State, which is the highest French jurisdiction for matters of administrative law. In that case, the mayor of the City of Nevers prohibited the plaintiff from holding a public meeting, in response to protests from teachers’ unions (the plaintiff had a history of mocking teachers in his speeches). The Council of State struck down the mayor’s order prohibiting the meeting on the grounds that it was disproportional to the risk of public disorder that the meeting presented. While this decision was, strictly speaking, a freedom of assembly case, its principle of proportionality applies to freedom of expression as well. For example, it was cited in a 2014 decision in which the Council of State upheld the prohibition of a public performance by controversial comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, because it was justified by the high risk that he would disturb public order by engaging in illegal hate speech.
Furthermore, the Law of 29 July 1881 on Freedom of the Press, which is still in force (although it has been amended numerous times since its original adoption), prohibits defamation and insults, both written and verbal. The Law of 29 July 1881 defines “defamation” as “any allegation or imputation of a fact which harms the honor or consideration of the person or group to which the fact is imputed.” The same provision defines “insult” as “any offensive expression, term of contempt, or invective which does not contain the imputation of any fact.” The legislators have tried to find a balance between freedom of speech and the prohibitions against defamation and insult. Thus, speech may not be considered defamation if it can be shown to have been expressed in good faith, or if it is true—although the “exception of truth” is itself limited by the right to privacy, meaning that a true statement may still be considered defaming if it concerns a person’s private life.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/france.php
Great.
Come back when there is a spate of radical Jewish beheadings on the streets of France.
Touche! Totally got me and made my whole post redundant. Reward yourself with a sticker, warm milk and a cookie.
The point i was trying to make is that the french govt can legally ban the cartoons to maintain "public order". The next point i am making is the cartoons can be legally seen as racism and also defamatory and insulting to the "honor of a particular group". The final point i am making is that french law allows "opinions" on religions and therefore people should be free to critique religions.
Having said all of that i see the situation worsening in france and europe, erdogen will milk it politically for his political benefit and so will the far right politicians in europe. Even the islamic terrorists are conservative right wingers living in there eco chamber. I won't be surprised if there's another ethnic cleansing in europe a few decades from now, the left is doomed.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If you are wondering who that is, he was former prime minister of Malaysia.
How can they legally be seen as racism and or defamatory? Not to mention there's extremely little room for anything as stupid as banning the cartoons to maintain public order.
Rather just highlight to other posters in the thread the stranger parts of your post tbh.
It's appalling when people who are apparently incensed by what they see as attacks on their faith go out to a church and kill random people who are peacefully practising their own faith. The woman who was beheaded this morning was elderly and was simply praying in the church.
They have nothing to do with publishing cartoons, the French government or anything else on the world stage. They were just observant Catholics.
They have nothing to do with publishing cartoons, the French government or anything else on the world stage. They were just observant Catholics.
As soon as anyone uses their religion to guide their opinion, it is worthless. Might as well use tarot cards.
@ Penna.
And also unable to fight back. So not only was this guy a murderer, he’s a coward too.
And also unable to fight back. So not only was this guy a murderer, he’s a coward too.
Twisted view reading through that Dr's thread. Like fitting his square peg beliefs into a round hole.
Stranger? Youre taking my point of how criticism without logical basis being allowed against Muslims wouldn't be considered in good taste against other groups including Jews, is somehow made redundant because in this society there aren't Jews murdering random innocent people?
Make your point a legit one and coherently or leave it out will ya.
I’m not sure why the crazy Muslims can’t understand that not everyone believes in the same stuff. That’s one nice benefit of being in a secular world; you get to have your fairytales but others get theirs too.
He’s a lunatic best ignored, but for some reason he keeps getting a platform in places like Oxford and Columbia, e.g.
A defiant Malaysian PM defends his anti-Semitism in the name of free speech
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.tim...anti-semitism-in-the-name-of-free-speech/amp/
It's like we should all be grateful that we have not been murdered.
From the definition of defamation and insult in the law of 29 july 1881. From what ive read freedom of speech is not absolute, for example on Bastille Day you cant tear the french national flag and mock the national anthem, it is illegal.
Following this logic due to my mixed heritage I have right to kill a few germans for british killed by the Nazi's and then have I have to execute myself for Danish killings of brits during the Napoleon wars and Viking conquests of Britain.
"Freedom of speech" is arbitrary. The cartoonist of a big German newspaper got fired for this cartoon:
Yet depicting the prophet of Muslims with a terrorist belt or calling Erdogan a pedophile who fecks animal is always justified with freedom of speech and Western values that must be taught in school. Comical.
Yet depicting the prophet of Muslims with a terrorist belt or calling Erdogan a pedophile who fecks animal is always justified with freedom of speech and Western values that must be taught in school. Comical.
So you've somehow decided that the cartoons are racist, based on something you can't quote and/or describe.
Mint that.
Ok you win.
So you've somehow decided that the cartoons are racist, based on something you can't quote and/or describe.
Mint that.
And due to my heritage I've the right to kill Britishers too. What a weird and dangerous twitter thread considering its coming from a former leader of the state.
Last edited:
You're trying to conflate antisemitism, a millennia-long hatred of Jewish people (a race) to Islamophobia (hate against a religious identity) - both are abhorrent by the way! You say that if the critiques levied against Islam were levied against Jewish people, it would be deemed as antisemitism. You are, in my opinion, missing out context, of which Jewish people are not shooting up nightclubs, beheading teachers, or driving trucks into crowds of people. Antisemitism
So Islam gets critiqued. Does some of this wash over into Islamophobia, 100%. Is all critique and commentary on this subject Islamophobic? No. People critique Israel over Palestine and sometimes that is called out as antisemitic when it is genuine critique. Other times the critiques end up being antisemitic in their content and the response is justified etc.
The logical basis for critiquing anyone and everything is obvious.
Maybe not a very good analogy, may even be holes in it that surpass comedy. I'll try it anyway. The church, Catholic priests, and priests I guess in general, have a non-flattering history with children. Imagine the world of protestant, catholic and other Christians going "no, no, they don't represent my faith. don't look at me, look elsewhere" and did feck all about it. Easy to argue too little has been done. But in general, it's not what has happened. Movies been made, people gone to prison, society at large knows and accept this history as fact. Priesthood status has fallen off a cliff. Is it really so hard to condemn what is so obviously wrong? Desperate times and all that
So you think they shouldn't be allowed to publish such cartoons? That's the truly comical take."Freedom of speech" is arbitrary. The cartoonist of a big German newspaper got fired for this cartoon:
Yet depicting the prophet of Muslims with a terrorist belt or calling Erdogan a pedophile who fecks animal is always justified with freedom of speech and Western values that must be taught in school. Comical.
I agree that is double standards. However he was fired. I'm not sure he was prohibted by law(I don't know this case). However why would the editor of the newspaper publish the cartoon and then fire him for it? Also this is Germany and not France. However I completely agree this is double standards."Freedom of speech" is arbitrary. The cartoonist of a big German newspaper got fired for this cartoon:
Yet depicting the prophet of Muslims with a terrorist belt or calling Erdogan a pedophile who fecks animal is always justified with freedom of speech and Western values that must be taught in school. Comical.
Macron is resorting to tactics such as the stigmatisation of the whole Muslim minority. He has started an anti-Islamic discourse that creates the impression that France is at the risk of losing its identity and future to alleged Islamists. Very likely due to his dwindling support with the electorate.
The only thing arbitrary is people's understanding of it, as perfectly exemplified by this post."Freedom of speech" is arbitrary. The cartoonist of a big German newspaper got fired for this cartoon:
Yet depicting the prophet of Muslims with a terrorist belt or calling Erdogan a pedophile who fecks animal is always justified with freedom of speech and Western values that must be taught in school. Comical.
Freedom of speech is about not being persecuted by the state for your views. An individual or private organisation can choose who they want to work with based on any number of criteria. If that cartoonist is free to open his own newspaper or magazine with likeminded people and publish these cartoons (you know, like Charlie Hebdo) without the state shutting him down, then there's freedom of speech.
If a former president thinks that, what would someone without education think?
But that is the objective of satire, which is also usually protected by a law itself or within the principle of freedom of expression."Freedom of speech" is arbitrary. The cartoonist of a big German newspaper got fired for this cartoon:
Yet depicting the prophet of Muslims with a terrorist belt or calling Erdogan a pedophile who fecks animal is always justified with freedom of speech and Western values that must be taught in school. Comical.
There are limits, such as the apology of terrorism/nazism, or whatever the legislation of each country establishes.
Imagine banning any representation of someone crucified, or even Borat 2, the movie because of the Jews.
It is also not that there is a daily provocation in lemonde or lefigaro, it is a specific magazine, surely in extinction like many others and that was riddled with bullets. Perhaps a reason not to bend.
I can only speak for myself, but I do condemn radical baptists who shoot up abortion clinics with the same vehemence as radical Muslims that kill random Catholics. And when radical atheists appear that try to achieve things through barbarity I'll criticise them too.
That said I'll be honest, if anyone is convinced that Muslims are treated in such a way in Europe that justifies beheading people we can not have that person walking our streets. It's that simple really. Cartoon this or that, I don't care. If a cartoon makes you chop someones head off you are not fit for this society.
Agree with this.
Better put than I can do too. Thanks.
Not sure if serious
Hah
Agree with all this. And this whole "situation" has now become really dangerous
I'm gunna go out on a limb and suggest the hundreds of dead French, murdered in acts born out of pure evil and carried out in the name of Islam, has more to do with any anti-islamic discourse going on in France than anything Macron has said or done.
Honest question here. Do you not think the wider Muslim community needs to have a look at their views on blasphemy and what it considers as wrongful attacks on them?
For example; a tiny, fringe French magazine like Charlie Hebdo publishes satirical cartoons of religious content. The vast majority of religious Christians and Jews just roll their eyes and move on. It's not even a major topic of conversation, if they don't like it, they don't read it. Seemingly a very large number of Muslims though (majority? I don't know) seem to consider this a highly inappropriate attack on religion.
That of course doesn't mean that those will do anything crazy about it. They might consider it wrongful, insulting and an attack on them... but they still respect freedom of speech. However an indoctrinated crazy person says "if we're being attacked, why don't we do something about it?" and then goes and does that.
My point is that if a large part of the community is so conservative, dogmatic and anachronistic about these subjects, then we'll of course have a higher incidence of militant crazies. It's effectively religious conservatism clashing with liberalism that sparks these few cases, but if that clash wasn't there in the first place it wouldn't be an issue. That is the root cause. How do you reconcile a liberal society with a deeply conservative religious minority? Something has to change, surely?
EDIT: The worrying thing is, we're at the stage where even pointing out how this religious conservativism creates a problem is deemed as an attack on religion. How do we move forward when even a suggestion that reform might be needed is deemed as attack or persecution that carries the risk of violent reprisals?
Last edited: